Is self defense even plausible?

[sbrettt]

You're principles are neither law nor are they part of the court process. In other words, you're principles are irrelevent to the case at hand.

Yes but they are relevant to my original question.

 

[SMTA]

So Z did not follow Martin and approach Martin?

Nolo comprehendo again, eh?

 

[SMTA]

Yes but they are relevant to my original question.

No, because you lack principles, your observation lacks relevance.

 

[OscarB63]

Everyone hear has gone around my premise. Is it reasonable to say you were defending yourself when you were the one who initially started and instigated a confrontation? What I'm saying is Zimmerman is the only reason Zimmerman got punched in the first place.

your premise is flawed...that's why everyone is going around it. Martin instigated the confrontation....not zimmerman. :shrug: being followed and asked a question is not reasonable grounds to punch someone.

 

[SMTA]

Right there yes.

Yes, right everywhere.

 

[sbrettt]

No, because you lack principles, your observation lacks relevance.

You're attacking an argument that I haven't actually made. Please answer original question.

 

[SMTA]

your premise is flawed...that's why everyone is going around it. Martin instigated the confrontation....not zimmerman. :shrug: being followed and asked a question is not reasonable grounds to punch someone.

Doubt this will stick either.......

 

[SMTA]

You're attacking an argument that I haven't actually made. Please answer original question.

Yes, you did.

 

[TheNextEra]

Yes but they are relevant to my original question.

You're question is the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No?"

 

[sbrettt]

Yes, right everywhere.

I think you're having trouble comprehending my question.

 

[SMTA]

You're question is the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No?"

Nailed that one!

/Respect/

 

[sbrettt]

You're question is the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No?"

What is my question?

 

[SMTA]

I think you're having trouble comprehending my question.

There you go with that silliness again.....

 

[SMTA]

What is my question?

Yes, it is.

 

[TheNextEra]

What is my question?

You don't remember your question? Wow, you are lost.

 

[sbrettt]

There you go with that silliness again.....

I feel like you're dodging me because you can't attack my actual question on it's merits

 

[sbrettt]

You don't remember your question? Wow, you are lost.

I wanted you to say it so you could be like wow what I just said was non sense.

 

[SMTA]

I feel like you're dodging me because you can't attack my actual question on it's merits

No, silly, your original observations had no merit, which negates any questions, as they would have no merit, either.

 

[SMTA]

I wanted you to say it so you could be like wow what I just said was non sense.

All of your comments have had a Wow factor.

 

[Excon]

Lets be real, if you follow and confront someone who is un armed, then say you defended yourself when you instigated the confrontation, and when clearly nothing would have happened had Z just called the police and left it alone. In principle it's just plain silly.

Your narrative is off.
It was ™ who approached and confronted Zimmerman.

 

[SMTA]

Your narrative is off.
It was ™ who approached and confronted Zimmerman.

Yes, it was quite silly.

 

[sbrettt]

No, silly, your original observations had no merit, which negates any questions, as they would have no merit, either.

I didn't know opinions were facts. You just turned my world upside down.

 

[SMTA]

I didn't know opinions were facts. You just turned my world upside down.

No, the wrongness of your original observations were completely wrong.

Don't blame me for your silliness.

 

[Josie]

Obviously, it depends upon how one interprets the evidence. I agree with the OP. If Z had followed instructions received on the phone, and if he had NOT been armed, in accordance with the rules governing Neighborhood Watch, Martin would still be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He was on the prowl, with anger and hard feelings towards young blacks, and while he didn't find Rodney King, he did find what he wanted, and got to burn some powder in the process.

1. He did follow the instructions on the phone. He stopped following and turned back to walk toward his car.
2. He wasn't on NW duty. There's no reason why he couldn't have his concealed weapon on him.
3. You're assuming (based on media hype, I believe) that he was "on the prowl, with anger and hard feelings toward young blacks". The evidence and people who know GZ do not agree with you.

 

[TheNextEra]

I wanted you to say it so you could be like wow what I just said was non sense.

Nope, sorry. My point still stands. Seems you are so emotionally invested in this trial, you aren't able to step back and look at things objectively. I would wager you will be sorely dissapointed when Zimmerman is aquitted.