Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I want to hear your explanation for how Martin, the athlete, ran away and Zimmerman, who was obese according to medical reports at the time, caught up with him and shot him.
Read above, I did explain. Now you said Zimmerman didn't follow him. You explain why he was so far from his car.
First you didnt explain.
Second I never said Zimmerman didnt follow him at all. He did follow him, lost him, returned to his car but was intercepted by Martin before he could get there.
Last chance: how could Zimmerman, who was obese, run and catch up with Martin, who played football?
I asked a question and never asked them to agree with anything. The "agree" thing was just a troll invention on the other guy's part or like I thought, he's a foreigner. lol
I never used the word "agree" in that way.
I quoted you. You said "agree".
Damn, I've given you five minutes of attention today. What a waste.
Goodbye.
"Wouldn't you agree" is a figure of speech or some kind of hypothetical question. I don't know the exact grammatical term for it.
You could ask, "Wouldn't you agree the world is flat." That doesn't mean the person asking the question believes it's flat or wants to convince people of that. I'm going to start charging now for grammar lessons. LMAO
I think he is plenty articulate. Apparently he is very well liked and respected and appreciated by his neighbors who know him well, but on camera he is not that sympathetic a person. He is probably very lovable once you get to know him. But on camera, he just isn't somebody who looks adorable either in his appearance or by his demeanor. He just isn't one of those people you are automatically drawn to and feel immediate rapport or sympathy with. And that could go against him under antagonistic interrogation by the Prosecution. I'm sure his defense team knows that too.
Someone--I don't know who--remarked that he had an unusually interesting and accomplished group of friends.
I haven't thought much about his appearance--under such circumstances anyone who can sit stoically through hours and hours of the legal process gets a pass from me.
'They' thought the woman called as a final witness was a good choice and it clarified to me that he has a genuine interest in his community. That is how I would respond to her testimony.
Far too emotional myself to serve on this jury and perhaps on any jury.
Why he couldn't have hit TM over the head with the gun--but I don't know. Self defense.
Having never engaged in a physical altercation it is difficult to judge what thoughts or feelings might be involved. Adrenaline---but that is the jury's job to decide.
I have been physically assaulted. I was working alone when a transient, a guy plenty big enough to take me out with a single blow, came in demanding money. When I told him I didn't have any he became angry and irate. He locked the door and had me cornered and was so threatening I honestly thought I was a goner. I had no weapon of any kind at my disposal. I honestly cannot remember every detail--trauma of that kind does that to you--but somehow I did manage to convince him I would need to get to the (nonexistent) safe in the next room, he stepped back just enough to let me get past him and out another door and ran to the Methodist church next door. The transient was rifling through my desk--he somehow missed my purse that was under it--when he was interrupted by my boss returning and he fled.
If I had had a gun that day however, and had seen no way to escape, would I have shot? I almost certainly would have. Would my intent be to kill the guy? I don't think so. It would have been to stop him from whatever violence he intended to do. And he hadn't even touched me yet. In the situation almost everybody now believes George Zimmerman was in, was he justified in shooting? I would have. Was his intent to kill or stop the assault? I would guess the latter. But none of us know for sure do we?
That GZ was not doing anything illegal either and that if TM attacked him, that would be an illegal thing for TM to do, and if TM was on top of him bashing his skull to the concrete, GZ had the right to defend himself and that if you can not prove that this sequence of events just described is false beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ should walk.
The prosecution put forth a new theory that li'l Trayvon was on TOP and trying to get away! Oh my aching head!
New to the trial yes. But not new to this thread. That was discussed here quite a few times.
That's quite an imagnation you've got.1. It isn't illegal to come up to someone to ask a question
2. It is assault to attack someone(trayvon )
3. It is within Zimmermans rights to defend his self when trayvon is screaming I am going to kill you mother fucker.
How much more clear does it need to be?
I would love to see what you would think and do if a "Trayvon Martin type" was following your ass around in a truck when you were just walking down the street and minding your business. I would like to see what you would do if he got out of his truck to look for you. See if zimmerman was a Black guy and Martin was a white kid with the same "facts" that are in this case, I can guarantee your ass would be going to the race forum and crying about "the Blacks" and how he killed an innocent white kid who was scared because "the evil Black" was following him when he simply was on his way home with skittles and a drink in his hand.
Thanks for the laugh!!!
Unfortunately totally without foundation but thanks for playing.
I quoted you. You said "agree".
Damn, I've given you five minutes of attention today. What a waste.
Goodbye.
"Wouldn't you agree" is a figure of speech or some kind of hypothetical question. I don't know the exact grammatical term for it.
You could ask, "Wouldn't you agree the world is flat." That doesn't mean the person asking the question believes it's flat or wants to convince people of that. I'm going to start charging now for grammar lessons. LMAO
"Wouldn't you agree?" is stating that you wish the person you are addressing would accept your point of view. If you say "wouldn't you agree that George Zimmerman is a sociopath?" then you are stating that YOU believe George Zimmerman is a sociopath and that you want whoever you're addressing to agree with your view.
The person that has a problem with comprehension here is you, Sparky...
I don't follow.
Stand your ground law at its best means that if you feel threatened you can be proactive in defusing the threat. I don't think anyone can make a case that Martin did not feel threatened. Therefore, IF he started the fight, he had every right to do it out of self-defense.
This is a likely reason Z did not use stand your ground to get his case dismissed because it would have begged the question, what about Martin's stand your ground rights?
That is just as silly as arguing that people who are being attacked have to run away instead of defending themselves.
There isn't one as far as I'm aware.
I'm sorry though, I missed your point.
The point is, you are as much in error of assuming that Trayvon Martin was going about his lawful business as much as you are in error by assuming the George Zimmerman was acting unlawfully or negligently and/or intended to commit murder.
You weren't there. Neither were any of others of us here. We all are informed only by what we see on television or read in the newspapers or on the internet or hear on the radio. George Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin or as innocent as the wind driven snow. Ditto Trayvon Martin. None of us have any way to know that for sure.
But in my opinion, anybody who is any way fair minded has to know that the prosecution has not made a case that George Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than self defense which is not a crime in Florida or anywhere else for that matter.
Don't assume that I'm on anyone's side here...I'm not hoping for a conviction, nor an acquittal.
GZ might have been assaulted, I don't know.
But, the fact remains, it happened because GZ was suspicious of TM.
He wouldn't have been there otherwise.
You are one stupid, ignorant motherfucker. You don't know what you write, much less what anyone else writes.I quoted you. You said "agree".
Damn, I've given you five minutes of attention today. What a waste.
Goodbye.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/300245-the-official-zimmerman-trial-thread-3.html#post7512515
"Wouldn't you agree" is a figure of speech or some kind of hypothetical question. I don't know the exact grammatical term for it.
You could ask, "Wouldn't you agree the world is flat." That doesn't mean the person asking the question believes it's flat or wants to convince people of that. I'm going to start charging now for grammar lessons. LMAO
Go on ignore. Leave us alone.
Stand your ground law at its best means that if you feel threatened you can be proactive in defusing the threat. I don't think anyone can make a case that Martin did not feel threatened. Therefore, IF he started the fight, he had every right to do it out of self-defense.
This is a likely reason Z did not use stand your ground to get his case dismissed because it would have begged the question, what about Martin's stand your ground rights?
That is just as silly as arguing that people who are being attacked have to run away instead of defending themselves.
wtf? That is why the law was written, so people being attacked aren't obligated to run away. Having an overweight fucker with a gun following you is a valid reason to be proactive.
Don't assume that I'm on anyone's side here...I'm not hoping for a conviction, nor an acquittal.
GZ might have been assaulted, I don't know.
But, the fact remains, it happened because GZ was suspicious of TM.
He wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Went to bffs so she could tivo/ catch up last night with a yell partner.
Pissed all over again. So under judges cell logic if a pedophile has kid porn on his computer she would throw it out because a 7 year old could hack the password, change file extensions, encrypt and hide thousands of photos and porn on the pedophiles computer.
Have I got that right?
Shit I just screwed my new phone spell check from the Jodi trial on "pedophile"
The point is, you are as much in error of assuming that Trayvon Martin was going about his lawful business as much as you are in error by assuming the George Zimmerman was acting unlawfully or negligently and/or intended to commit murder.
You weren't there. Neither were any of others of us here. We all are informed only by what we see on television or read in the newspapers or on the internet or hear on the radio. George Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin or as innocent as the wind driven snow. Ditto Trayvon Martin. None of us have any way to know that for sure.
But in my opinion, anybody who is any way fair minded has to know that the prosecution has not made a case that George Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than self defense which is not a crime in Florida or anywhere else for that matter.
Don't assume that I'm on anyone's side here...I'm not hoping for a conviction, nor an acquittal.
GZ might have been assaulted, I don't know.
But, the fact remains, it happened because GZ was suspicious of TM.
He wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Zimmerman referred to Trayvon as the suspect in written statements many times. Seems like a wannabe cop to me..
Did I miss anything?
Arghhhhhhh, over 600 posts since the last time I checked in.
Hate it when life gets in the way of a trial
THIS BITCH IS MINE!!!
