@DrewDad,
So, now, Thomas believes that Martin's slugging Zimmerman had the power of a professional boxer. ROFLMAO
@DrewDad,
Indeed, the fight may not have been life threatining, but I think you're asking someone who's just been hit in the head (maybe) to do an awful lot of analysis.
@roger,
Quote:Indeed, the fight may not have been life threatining, but I think you're asking someone who's just been hit in the head (maybe) to do an awful lot of analysis.
Ya think that would also apply to those who just had a 500 pound bomb dropped on their heads, Rog?
@revelette,
Yes. Absolute proof of something is almost impossible to prove. Remember O.J.Simpson.
@roger,
roger wrote:
Indeed, the fight may not have been life threatining, but I think you're asking someone who's just been hit in the head (maybe) to do an awful lot of analysis.
If he has the faculties to think, "hey! I have a gun, and I should use it" then he probably has the faculties to think, "hey! I just got punched and I should get away from the guy throwing punches."
Pulling a gun, turning of the safety, aiming, and pulling the trigger is not a reflex for most people.
His claim to self defense is not that he was being pummeled to death; his claim is that he thought Martin was reaching for the gun. All of this stuff around the minor wounds, and possible concussion, misses the fact that he already stated that he had his wits about him.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:This is supports the evidence that the fight was not life threatening.
It can certainly
seem life threatening, even to a reasonable person such as yourself, when there's no referee to stop the fight after the guy knocks you out, and when you
don't know he's in it for the trophy, not for you.
@Thomas,
Beating someone to death with just fists is not an easy proposition, no matter what Hollywood may depict.
@revelette,
Quote:I don't think De la Rionda is doing too bad
I just listened to the entire argument. I thought it was too rambling and too repetitive, mostly focusing on the evidence that Zimmerman is a liar and a wannabe cop. I found it lacked cohesion and a build-up to Zimmerman's inevitable guilt. He did paint Zimmerman's story as non-credible, and he did urge jurors to use their common sense, but, whether this was convincing enough, only time will tell.
Tomorrow the defense gives their closing argument, and then the state makes a final closing statement. I suspect that the state's final statement will have more of an emotional punch--like their opening statement.
@DrewDad,
I usually get the impression that fist fights in the movies are over-drawn without much in the way of a sure winner.
@firefly,
I am so ignorant when it comes to this, I used to watch the regular Law and Order series and I always remembered McCoy going last, didn't realize the state goes twice.
Yeah, he must have gotten rambling, I found myself going off to do some neglected housework. However, I did like the bit about Zimmerman making assumptions and then acting on those mistaken assumptions. When I commented, it was pretty early on.
I'm following, but from afar. I've liked this thread, mostly, re the back and forth conversation.
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I thought it was too rambling and too repetitive, mostly focusing on the evidence that Zimmerman is a liar and a wannabe cop..
Rambling doesn't sound good, but the rest might be exactly what the jury needs to hear and feel. I don't think the jury really needs to justify its verdict.
@cicerone imposter,
A little interesting trivia on boxing.
Quote:
The Longest Fight: In the Ring with Joe Gans, Boxing's First African American Champion [Hardcover]
Many people came to Goldfield, Nevada, America’s last gold-rush town, to seek their fortune. However, on a searing summer day in September 1906, they came not to strike it rich but to watch what would become the longest boxing match of the twentieth century—between Joe Gans, the first African American boxing champion, and “Battling” Nelson, a vicious and dirty brawler. It was a match billed as the battle of the races.
In The Longest Fight, the longtime Washington Post sports correspondent William Gildea tells the story of this epic match, which would stretch to forty-two rounds and last two hours and forty-eight minutes. A new rail line brought spectators from around the country, dozens of reporters came to file blow-by-blow accounts, and an entrepreneurial crew’s film of the fight, shown in theaters shortly afterward, endures to this day.
The Longest Fight also recounts something much greater—the longer battle that Gans fought against prejudice as the premier black athlete of his time. It is a portrait of life in black America at the turn of the twentieth century, of what it was like to be the first black athlete to successfully cross the nation’s gaping racial divide. Gans was smart, witty, trim, and handsome—with one-punch knockout power and groundbreaking defensive skills—and his courage despite discrimination prefigured the strife faced by many of America’s finest athletes, including Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, and Muhammad Ali.
Inside the ring and out, Gans took the first steps for the African American athletes who would follow, and yet his role in history was largely forgotten until now. The Longest Fight is a reminder of the damage caused by the bigotry that long outlived Gans, and the strength, courage, and will of those who fought to rise above.
@cicerone imposter,
“I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is.”
― Nancy Farmer, The House of the Scorpion
@cicerone imposter,
Full circle for irrelevant to this thread, a friend's father was out of it for years with boxing brain. I should research, he was a contender, in memory. Thus my enjoyment when she met Ali on a Santa Monica street (in front of Napoleon's), him then in trouble but walking and talking. My friend knew all about it. I met him too, but was aside, as was his companion or wife.
Ok, back to Florida.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:Beating someone to death with just fists is not an easy proposition, no matter what Hollywood may depict.
That's not what the German army told me in basic training. But I admit I never gave it a try.
@firefly,
Ive been watching trial summaries on Fox and on CNN and BOY!! there must have been two Zimmermans out there . One Zimmerman was an innocent who was attacked by a minority criminal and who, exercising his rights under the second amendment, bravely ended the perps life: The other Zimmerman was a criminal lying sack of **** who purposely targeted, stalked and drew the child with the skittles into a fight and then slew him .
We need another thread fter this is all over to explain how each of our universes dictated which side we believed (and how our disparate political universes played to each).
No matter what, I think the state did as good a job it could with the evidence it had. I don't think that Zimmerman will walk. He will be held to some standard for punishment
@farmerman,
I hope not, as an olden neighborhood watch person.
First, we must note that what a jury will decide
is (almost) always un-predictable; (e.g., there was NO chance
whatsoever that the blacks on OJ 's criminal jury wud have allowed
their hero to be convicted merely for killing whites).
However, concerning the case at bar:
if I were Zimmy, I 'd be feeling pretty optimistic.
Altho his lawyer O 'Mara is little above mediocre,
Bernie de la Rionda, Esq. has not been a great deal better.
(In fairness, the record evidence gave him little to work with.)
In his summation, he consumed all but c.25 minutes
of rebuttal time, during which his main weapon of
persuasion was intoning his voice to imply scorn against
Zimmy 's credibility and to imply that there was something
vaguely improper about a citizen FOLLOWING someone,
if he believes that the object of his interest is a criminal.
There is NOTHING whatsoever in the evidence
to show anything morally or legally incorrect
with ANYTHING that Zimmy did, as shown in the record.
The Court will NOT charge the jury that there is
anything un-lawful about following anyone in Florida,
nor will she charge them that following someone
constitutes the beginning of a fight.
Accordingly, the under-whelming Mr. O' Mara has only
to say: "SO WHAT????" Even if defendant DID
everything that is alleged against him, (profiling n following)
he STILL retains his right of self defense against anyone
who is beating his head on the pavement. A FOLLOWER
need not permit his head to be beaten against the pavement
until his brain falls out, if he did not do WORSE by attacking the followee.
The Prosecution 's case has been predicated
on the naked, un-supported notion
that there is something morally or legally improper
about FOLLOWING someone. No proof of this is offered.
During the course of the day, a few times I thought that
in the un-likely event of conviction, the Court
has afforded Zimmy an ez appeal. The Court changed
her mind about charging Zimmy with child abuse.
( I wonder if she got a private laff about that.)
As I see it: the greatest likelihood is for a FULL ACQUITTAL;
the next greatest chance is for a hung jury.
Least, in my opinion, is the chance of a compromise verdict
of conviction for manslaughter, so as to please the blacks.
(If the latter happens, Mr. O'Mara will have his choice
to keep secret the cannabis in the perpetrator 's blood
to blemish his professional reputation forever; possible disbarment proceedings).
David
"The perpetrator" = the guy who slammed the victim 's head
against the cement.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:Ive been watching trial summaries on Fox and on CNN and BOY!!
there must have been two Zimmermans out there.
Shud that be 2 Zimmermen ??
How many Zimmermen, if u count the parents ?
