Oh, I thought you meant something that had even the slightest thing to do about the case.

 

So lying is okay under oath, sometimes?

Witness today said Zimmerman was on top during the struggle, not Martin.

 

Is this the witness that based her opinion on nothing more than pictures of the two she saw in the media?

 

Defense lawyers moved quickly to try to punch holes in the testimony of both witnesses by telling the jury that the women were making assumptions, and nothing else.

 

During cross-examination, the witnesses acknowledged that it was too dark to see faces and that they could see only bodies, or “shadows,” as Ms. Manalo called them during past interviews with law enforcement officials. Ms. Manalo said she saw the figures from a sliding-glass door that led to a courtyard.

 

Ms. Manalo, in particular, wavered in her testimony. Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, inquired about the photographs she saw that led her to conclude that Mr. Zimmerman was on top of Mr. Martin. He showed her a copy of a widely circulated photo of Mr. Martin in a hoodie — a photo Mr. O’Mara stressed was only of Mr. Martin’s face — two photos of Mr. Martin in a football uniform and one of him in a red T-shirt. Those photographs were taken when Mr. Martin was younger than 17.

 

Ms. Manalo acknowledged that those were the photos she had seen on the news and that Mr. Martin looked younger than 17 in them. She said she had never seen a recent photograph of Mr. Martin.

 

“That’s how I compared it,” she said. “Maybe I am wrong.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/residents-of-housing-complex-testify-in-zimmerman-trial.html

Is this the witness that based her opinion on nothing more than pictures of the two she saw in the media?

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/residents-of-housing-complex-testify-in-zimmerman-trial.html

 

Yeah that's the one. She never said it as a matter of fact, so not sure what your issue is.

So lying is okay under oath, sometimes?

 

Never said that. But hey, if Bill Clinton is allowed to do it, why can't she?

I think it's clear you are supporting the prosecution no matter what.

 

Chief witness in Trayvon Martin case lied under oath - CNN.com

 

Absolutely. He killed an unarmed kid, who was minding his own business, for no reason. He deserves to be punished for it, IMO.

 

Yeah that's the one. She never said it as a matter of fact, so not sure what your issue is.

 

You only posted the side of her testimony that supported the prosecutions argument.

 

Never said that. But hey, if Bill Clinton is allowed to do it, why can't she?

 

My point is how can you believe any of her testimony? What else has she or will she lie about? She clearly supports one side over the other.

 

Absolutely. He killed an unarmed kid, who was minding his own business, for no reason. He deserves to be punished for it, IMO.

 

Even if the unarmed kid sucker punched him and beat his head into the concrete like Zimmerman claims?

Even if the unarmed kid sucker punched him and beat his head into the concrete like Zimmerman claims?

 

How exactly does Zimmerman claim that he was sucker punched, if he was trailing Martin?

^I think they were face to face at that point.

 

How exactly does Zimmerman claim that he was sucker punched, if he was trailing Martin?

 

I believe he says he stopped following him because he lost sight. Martin then yelled something and he turned around and saw him. He says he then looked down to grab his phone and when he looked up Martin hit him in the nose.

Even if the unarmed kid sucker punched him and beat his head into the concrete like Zimmerman claims?

 

I get that fact that Zimmerman has the right to "stand his ground" if he's attacked. However, didn't Martin have that same right when he realized he was being followed in a car and then pursued on foot by a strange man? I don't think Zimmerman got out of the car with the intention of shooting Martin. However, by getting out of the car he's the one that initiated the confrontation. To me that means Martin was simply "standing his ground" first, then Zimmerman shot because Martin was getting the best of him or scared him--Zimmerman had no more right to defend himself than Martin did. Bottom line is if Zimmerman lets the cops handle this Martin is alive. Since I don't think his intention was to shoot Martin I'd have a hard time finding him guilty of murder but I'd find him guilty of manslaughter in a heartbeat.

 

I get that fact that Zimmerman has the right to "stand his ground" if he's attacked. However, didn't Martin have that same right when he realized he was being followed in a car and then pursued on foot by a strange man? I don't think Zimmerman got out of the car with the intention of shooting Martin. However, by getting out of the car he's the one that initiated the confrontation. To me that means Martin was simply "standing his ground" first, then Zimmerman shot because Martin was getting the best of him or scared him--Zimmerman had no more right to defend himself than Martin did. Bottom line is if Zimmerman lets the cops handle this Martin is alive. Since I don't think his intention was to shoot Martin I'd have a hard time finding him guilty of murder but I'd find him guilty of manslaughter in a heartbeat.

 

I'm just saying according to Zimmerman he wasn't following him anymore. And the simple fact is if he got out on public property to keep an eye on someone that isn't illegal.

 

I'd think Trayvon could definitely stand his ground if he were attacked. But I don't know if that's what went down.

I'm just saying according to Zimmerman he wasn't following him anymore. And the simple fact is if he got out on public property to keep an eye on someone that isn't illegal.

 

I'd think Trayvon could definitely stand his ground if he were attacked. But I don't know if that's what went down.

 

If he wasn't following him why was he out of the car looking around? Had he lost his wallet or something? He had obviously followed Martin to the point that Martin felt threatened enough to try and get away from him. If that was the case and Martin felt threatened by a strange person following him and then confronted him when he got out of the car then he wasn't breaking the law either. Bottom line: Martin wasn't breaking any laws by being where he was. He was pursued by Zimmerman to the point he felt threatened enough to confront him and Zimmerman killed him. If Zimmerman stays in his car this doesn't happen. I don't think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder, and I really don't think he should be. I do think he is at fault for the whole thing and should either be guilty of manslaughter or should lose any kind of civil suit.

I get that fact that Zimmerman has the right to "stand his ground" if he's attacked. However, didn't Martin have that same right when he realized he was being followed in a car and then pursued on foot by a strange man? I don't think Zimmerman got out of the car with the intention of shooting Martin. However, by getting out of the car he's the one that initiated the confrontation. To me that means Martin was simply "standing his ground" first, then Zimmerman shot because Martin was getting the best of him or scared him--Zimmerman had no more right to defend himself than Martin did. Bottom line is if Zimmerman lets the cops handle this Martin is alive. Since I don't think his intention was to shoot Martin I'd have a hard time finding him guilty of murder but I'd find him guilty of manslaughter in a heartbeat.

Martin did have the right to stand his ground but did he have the right to attack GZ?