Gonna do my best bigtex impression here: Know how I know I just completely dominated you in this argument. You have absolutely no response to anything I said and have chosen to 1. Say something as idiotic as "Zimmerman didn't have to listen to the dispatcher!" 2. Completely ignore what I said to argue the semantics of 1 word. Even if I used it wrong you know what I meant. 3. Did you not bring up race when no one else you were conversing with was talking about race? Maybe you're as good at reading as you are at comprehending, I specifically referred to the current conversations YOU were having. You try to play the role of calm and rational, you get verbally beat down, then respond like a child. Good day sir.
My point was that I've never seen or heard of a headset that automatically disconnects. I've seen lots of earpieces fall out without disconnecting a phone call. So what happened? Are you saying that's how Trayvon's worked? That seems to be what was suggested. I could sit on you and slam your head into the ground fifteen times or more without bruising my fists. My fists would never touch the ground. I could punch you at close, controlled range in the face without bruising my knuckles.
As levity, I just noticed this in the tags "wannabe condescending neckbard" I'm assuming whoever put this meant "neckbeard". Equally funny either way.
Claim whatever crap you want. I addressed everything. Did the police charge Zimmerman with ignoring the dispatcher? If that was a crime, that would be a no-brainer. NEXT. I've objected to your and others use of the word chase because it means something significantly different than followed. NEXT. You specifically referred to no conversation. You only made that claim after the fact. NEXT. Name-calling. You lose. NEXT.
You didn't answer a single question, because you can't. When did I or anyone else say that it was a crime? You are again bringing things into the conversation to suit your purposes. That is obviously something he should have done, anyone with commonsense knows that. BAM! You chose to point out the definition of that word because you couldn't respond to what I said. Tell you what, go ahead and put followed in place of chased and respond. I'll wait. BAM! BAM, and once again (even though you wont admit that you're wrong), who was speaking to or with you that mentioned race? Go ahead and quote it, I'll wait. BAM! The beat down continues.
physical evidence doesn't back up that testimony, and there are at least two other witnesses that directly conflict with that statement. Further evidence such as the video tape, also don't back up that statement. You, however, only appear to believe what you want. Nobody hear can discuss this with someone who ignores all versions of evidence but the one that he wants to believe.
Wrong there is the gf of the deceased, there is the video evidence from the police cameras, there is the cell phone evidence of the victim in the shooting, there is also another adult witness This person saw the conflict, with Zimmerman on top, and saw the shooting. He also saw that Zimmerman wasn't seriously hurt.
All I'm saying is what the article said...that the call was disconnected when the headset fell. Who knows why it got disconnected. Maybe the phone was in his pocket and the "end call" button was hit. Maybe Zimmerman jumped Martin, Martin fell, and his phone broke. Who knows? I understood your point, but your point is stupid. Who cares why the call was terminated? The fact is that the call WAS terminated after the headset was knocked off. Again, this is another stupid point. For your example to happen, I'd have to LET you slam my head into the ground. If I resisted, then there would be a fight, and there would be bruises (either offensive or defensive). I really don't understand what you're trying to argue. From what Zimmerman said, there was a brawl, and in the heat of the battle, Zimmerman shot Martin. However, you said that it was only a scuffle that lasted a few seconds. But if that were true, that would mean that Zimmerman immediately went for his gun. Essentially, it sounds like you're trying to argue that Martin's gf is biased, the funeral director and witness are not credible, and that Zimmerman is the only legitimate source of facts except for the facts regarding the actual fight. And apparently, we can get those facts from you...
I saw the police report, and depending on how you want to interpret that police report physical evidence could cast doubt on that report. In addition the police that were doing the investigating wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were told not to by the DA. That's why at least on of the police involved filed an affidavit and was not at all OK with the decision not to grab Zimmerman. You may think you are holding the middle ground but you aren't. You are denying evidence, and take other peoples evidence as fact. You stated as if it was fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. That is far from determined and confirmed. Sorry anyone who does that can't claim they're just taking the middle ground.
Here's what you said: If it's not a crime then why can't Zimmerman do just that? It's been said by me and others that Zimmerman's goal appeared to be to keep his eyes on Martin until the police arrived on scene. He seems to have been accomplishing that until he lost track of Martin and was returning to his truck. What happened next? Woe is me-- this beat down is awful! Here's what you wrote: "What in the world does that have to do with the back and forth you, others and I were having?" You never specified what you meant. How am I supposed to know what limits you are putting on something unless you specify it? And BTW your limits don't necessarily apply to me and they certainly don't unless you specify. I can't read your mind... anyway your use of OTHERS leaves it wide-open. If you have to claim a victory you are mostly likely just trying to convince yourself.
You know exactly what I meant, playing the semantics game is a pretty weak tactic but OK: Who today, when speaking to you, whether myself or another person, brought up race before you did?
Let's scroll down to number 5... You may want to go grab a thesaurus where follow is listed as a synonym for chase.
The point is not stupid. Is it possible that Trayvon terminated the call because he was about to engage Zimmerman? I'm not sure how you can say when the call was terminated; did I miss something there? It's not stupid. There was an implication that Trayvon's hands must be bruised and battered; I'm saying that is not so. Usually people are grabbed by the hair or the ears or the collar and have their heads banged on the ground. If someone were on top of me and was banging my head on the ground and I was unable to get them off me, I' would go for my gun. It would take about 15 seconds to determine that. They are off or they are not. I never said that the FD's words were not credible in terms of what he was describing (no bruising etc); I do take exception to his conclusions. If Zimmerman's father is automatically biased as a witness, isn't Martin's girlfriend. She heard someone hit the ground. Who? Was that Trayvon decking Zimmerman?
I can't properly answer what you don't specifically and accurately express. Otherwise I'm left guessing at what you meant. The burden is on you first.
It's called ranking. Finishing fifth in a division is not the same as finishing first. Home Court. :grin: I know it's not as rigid but the uses are ranked for likely meaning. The other, lesser uses are fine if there is contextual support for them. Generally in message board quick chat that does not exist.
