Day 6 testimony ( Monday 7/1)

[What if...?]

Lie?...evidence?

It would be good motivation to lie.

That's all I said.

 

[What if...?]

Are you actually LISTENING to testimony?? Have you watched the trial?

Your comments are nonsense.

All the testimony we've heard has been about after the altercation started.

Except Rachel.

 

[What if...?]

You don't punish folks who have to act in self-defense. That is ridiculous.
What he deserves is to walk.

Isn't shooting punishment?

 

[What if...?]

Still confused. If we stipulate the portion of Z's account (evidence) where M is 'walking towards' Z and asked 'you got a problem' it would seem Z would be justified to non lethal as he could have reasonably perceived M as an imminent threat.

Gun is lethal.

 

[What if...?]

Yes. They both had the right to defend themselves if they thought the other person was going to hurt them. Don't you agree that GZ had the right to reach for his weapon if he thought TM was going to hurt him?



When does Z know that M doesn't have a weapon?



I believed the both messed up which caused a tragic event.

If GZ was simply walking to find an address, then TM was wrong to assault him. If TM was just walking around minding his own beeswax, then GZ had no reason to call NEN. You can't look at things in hindsight.

How many times does M have to retreat before he decides that retreating isn't going to work?

 

[Excon]

Isn't shooting punishment?

No!
People shoot all the time for fun and sport. Of course it isn't punishment.

So are you going to stop being absurd?

 

[ric27]

It may very well be, but the jury will figure that out after the physical evidence with associated testimonies corroborates his stories.

I'll tell you right now....profiling and following doesn't negate Z's self-defense. Z was lawfully in an area where he was assaulted.

He had lawful right to be on the road and sidewalks of his neighborhood

 

[Grim17]

All the testimony we've heard has been about after the altercation started.

Except Rachel.

I hate to break it to you, but that is where the self defense law appliies and whether you believe Zinerman was the aggressor or Martin was, according to the law, Zinnerman had the right to defend himself and use legal force to do so.

 

[Grim17]

How many times does M have to retreat before he decides that retreating isn't going to work?

If he had retreated just once, he would be alive today and this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

 

[What if...?]

I hate to break it to you, but that is where the self defense law appliies and whether you believe Zinerman was the aggressor or Martin was, according to the law, Zinnerman had the right to defend himself and use legal force to do so.

And I'm telling you that if M was trying to keep Z from getting his gun out the whole time you would be wrong.

Don't think it can be proven in this case.

But if it could it would be.

If you're trying to shoot me you don't get to shoot me for trying to prevent you from shooting me.

That's just stupid.

 

[What if...?]

If he had retreated just once, he would be alive today and this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

He ran away from where a car can go.

That's retreating, whether you like it or not.

 

[Excon]

Don't think it can be proven in this case.

That is right, so give it a rest already.

There is no evidence to support such an assertion.

 

[Excon]

He ran away from where a car can go.

That's retreating, whether you like it or not.

:naughty
No, he ran in a skipping like fashion on the path to where he was staying.
It just happened to be where a car shouldn't go.

Which was not a retreat from his attacking Zimmerman.
So like I previously told you; Stop the absurdities.

 

[What if...?]

I hate to break it to you, but that is where the self defense law appliies and whether you believe Zinerman was the aggressor or Martin was, according to the law, Zinnerman had the right to defend himself and use legal force to do so.

Only if he withdraws in good faith.

I honestly think they both believed they were in a fight for their lives.

Over the gun.

If so, M can't be sure Z is withdrawing in good faith and Z CAN'T withdraw without surrendering his gun.

Z created this situation at the end of the day.

M would never have even known he existed without Zs direct, repeated actions.

Z bears some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

Not M2.

But some responsibility.

 

[What if...?]

:naughty
No, he ran in a skipping like fashion on the path to where he was staying.
It just happened to be where a car shouldn't go.

Which was not a retreat from his attacking Zimmerman.
So like I previously told you; Stop the absurdities.

Wanna start pulling up definitions of "retreat"?

 

[Excon]

I honestly think they both believed they were in a fight for their lives.

Over the gun.

You honestly believe ...
We know that, even though there is no evidence to support what you believe, you continue to cling to it.
That is absurdity.

Z created this situation at the end of the day.

M would never have even known he existed without Zs direct, repeated actions.

Z bears some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

Not M2.

But some responsibility.

No he doesn't.
He deserves to walk.

™ created the situation by attacking.
He did not have to come out of hiding. He chose not to continue on home.
He chose to attack and payed the price.
That is his fault.

 

[Excon]

Wanna start pulling up definitions of "retreat"?

:doh

You can pull up any definition you want.
It will not say that he was retreating from his attack upon Zimmerman.
Or do you really not know that?

 

[What if...?]

:doh

You can pull up any definition you want.
It will not say that he was retreating from his attack upon Zimmerman.
Or do you really not know that?

Not retreat from the struggle.

Retreat from the creepy asscracker.

 

[Excon]

Not retreat from the struggle.

Retreat from the creepy asscracker.

You were making a reply to my stating he was not retreating from his attack upon Zimmerman.
Don't try and flip the script now.

 

[What if...?]

You were making a reply to my stating he was not retreating from his attack upon Zimmerman.
Don't try and flip the script now.

And my original point was he moved away from Z repeatedly and Z kept coming.

You flipped the script to retreating from the struggle.

 

[What if...?]

Why don't you listen to it and tell us.
You know, as in support what you say.


Is that what you think you did? Wow?

Ok, my bad.

He says in the walkthrough and his written statement he didn't hear if M said anything.

Hard to keep all this in memory.

 

[Excon]

And my original point was he moved away from Z repeatedly and Z kept coming.

You flipped the script to retreating from the struggle.

:naughty
There you go trying to flip the script again.

This is what occurred.

If he had retreated just once, he would be alive today and this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.

He ran away from where a car can go.

That's retreating, whether you like it or not.

:naughty
No, he ran in a skipping like fashion on the path to where he was staying.
It just happened to be where a car shouldn't go.

Which was not a retreat from his attacking Zimmerman.
So like I previously told you; Stop the absurdities.

No matter how much you wish it to be, his heading home was not a retreat.
Nor was his attacking a retreat, which I believe is what Grim17 was referring to, and you tried to flip.


So like I previously told you many times before. Stop the absurdities.

 

[E_Pluribus_Venom]

Who says

even though there is no evidence to support what you believe, you continue to cling to it.
That is absurdity.

then says

™[/SIZE] created the situation by attacking.
He did not have to come out of hiding. He chose not to continue on home.
He chose to attack and payed the price.
That is his fault.

 

[Excon]

Who says



then says

Ah hello!
One of those has evidence to support it, the other does not.
Now use your reading skills to figure out which one.

 

[raindrop]

After listening to tape I realized that when Z said he cut through and didn't know the address, I heard many people ask why he didn't know the name of the street if he lived there. Well, it's probably because there is NO address on a cut through street. I if someone were to ask you the location, and has never been to that community, what would you say? That's why Z said he didn't know. Makes sense?