Where did you hear/read this?

 

It was either in the presecutor's opening statement or the foresenic person they had testify I believe. Can't recall which.

 

I'd continue on home, and by all indications, except for the statements from the guy who felt the need to kill an unarmed kid, that's what he did.

 

What do you mean by all indications?

 

All we have about how the fight started is what GZ said. What other indications are there?

The reason they gloss over it, is because they don't like the answer, and want to ignore it.

 

That is an unfair statement. You are having a hard time distinguishing between people trying to debate the merits of the case and personal feeling you believe they have about the case. People are not defending GZ as much as they are having a hard time pinpointing all the evidence that would result in his conviction.

Edited June 27, 201313 yr by bugatti

I thought you were only going on the evidence. What evidence says that's what happened?

I asked a question. Had nothing to do with the evidence or case really. Just asking what would you do.

 

That is an unfair statement. You are having a hard time distinguishing between people trying to debate the merits of the case and personal feeling you believe they have about the case. People are not defending GZ as much as they are having a hard time pinpointing all the evidence that would result in his conviction.

 

Agreed.

Edited June 27, 201313 yr by bugatti

I asked a question. Had nothing to do with the evidence or case really. Just asking what would you do.

 

No. I wouldn't shoot them. I can't imagine ever being in a situation that I would use violence as an answer.

That is an unfair statement. You are having a hard distinguishing between people trying to debate the merits of the case and personal feeling you believe they have about the case. People are not defending GZ as much as they are having a hard time pinpointing all the evidence that would result in his conviction.

 

It's accurate and GZ's previous 5 or 6 911 calls back that up. The only thing Martin did that was suspicious was he was unfamiliar and black.

I think GZ is 100% responsible up to the point that Martin made the decision to get physical. At that point it is 100% on Martin.[/that means n had the right to defend himself but Martin didnt?

 

If Martin felt threatened he had the same right to stand his ground as Zimmerman did. Had Martin been armed and shot Zimmerman when he approached him would you have been okay with that? Because essentially that's what he did. He answered a perceived threat with the only weapons he had.

What do you mean by all indications?

 

All we have about how the fight started is what GZ said. What other indications are there?

 

Why should we believe Zimmerman? You were very passionate in pointing out that a prosecution witness lacked credibility because they were a proven liar. Isn't Zimmerman a proven liar also? He did lie about his financial situation in a bond hearing. Why does his testimony get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Why should we believe Zimmerman? You were very passionate in pointing out that a prosecution witness lacked credibility because they were a proven liar. Isn't Zimmerman a proven liar also? He did lie about his financial situation in a bond hearing. Why does his testimony get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Passionate? How was I passionate about it :lol2:

 

Also I thought it was Zimmerman's wife who lied under oath, not Zimmerman.

5:02 p.m. ET: The man on top got up and took a few steps from the body, according to Mora. She says that while he was pacing, he had one hand on his waist and the other on his head. He didn't seem to have trouble walking and he didn't say anything.

 

5:00 p.m. ET: Mora says she couldn't make out the race of the person on top or the color of their clothes. She couldn't tell if the person on the bottom was a man or woman. She said to the individuals, "What's going on?" Nobody answered her but the person on top looked around at her. She asked again, "What's going on?" and the person didn't answer. She asked it again and finally got an answer. The person on top said just "to call the police." The person on the bottom never said anything.

 

Another witness claims that Zimmerman was on top of Martin...

5:02 p.m. ET: The man on top got up and took a few steps from the body, according to Mora. She says that while he was pacing, he had one hand on his waist and the other on his head. He didn't seem to have trouble walking and he didn't say anything.

 

5:00 p.m. ET: Mora says she couldn't make out the race of the person on top or the color of their clothes. She couldn't tell if the person on the bottom was a man or woman. She said to the individuals, "What's going on?" Nobody answered her but the person on top looked around at her. She asked again, "What's going on?" and the person didn't answer. She asked it again and finally got an answer. The person on top said just "to call the police." The person on the bottom never said anything.

 

Another witness claims that Zimmerman was on top of Martin...

 

Link?

 

You like to post the answers from the prosecutors line of questions but not the defense.

Link?

 

You like to post the answers from the prosecutors line of questions but not the defense.

 

You know how to use the internet. It's not hard to find.

 

The defense attorney didn't even grill her on it, so he obviously had no reason to think she was being inconsistent. He only asked her about the set up of her townhouse and the man's reaction as he waited for police.

For those that think he was acting in self-defense, if he was in fact on top of Martin, wouldn't that blow your theory to pieces?

 

You know how to use the internet. It's not hard to find.

 

The defense attorney didn't even grill her on it, so he obviously had no reason to think she was being inconsistent. He only asked her about the set up of her townhouse and the man's reaction as he waited for police.

 

Or you could provide a link to the quotes you just took from another website.