No I didn't. I rejected Dee Dee's testimony for being caught in too many lies. Nothing even remotely arbitrary about that. Credibility is important.
But you're rejecting the bits that are highly unlikely to be lies. Such as Martin calling Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" and whatnot. I get rejecting some of her testimony, but to me it should be limited to that which would be lies, not that which she would have been better off lying
about.
As for your feelings, well I am just going by your posts.
That's simply not true. You are going off of your perceptions of people who think Zimmerman "got away with something". If you were addressing what I was actually saying, you wouldn't keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Here's an idea... Why don't you leave my thoughts together and stop responding to each one out of context.
In what context could "absolutely" be anything but absolute agreement?
See note above.
It is a "cop" issue initially. DA's don't work the street.
Yes, and the cops knew hey had the shooter and let him go, essentially doing the DA's job for him.
Again as I said based on everything your defence does not apply in any way. According to Martins actions as I have pointed out, no one... The prosecutor's, witnesses other than discredited Dee Dee thought Martin was scared. He had subdued Zimmerman and continued to beat him after he, not Martin was screaming for help. The evidence states clearly your fight or flight theory does not apply as Martin had almost 5 minutes to call police or flee. Instead he circled back (which in Florida is considered a wave of self defence) giving up in that moment any right to any kind of self defence as shown in the cases I submitted. We then have to take Zimmerman's words that Martin struck him in the nose knocking him to the ground. He would be considered culpable by coming back to confront Zimmerman.
You are not looking at the entirety of evidence and you are compartmentalizing the circumstances. He ran (fear reaction), then Zimmerman followed him (limiting his flight options). Now here's where the thing gets interesting. After initially experiencing a flight reaction, Martin appears to have experienced a VERY common psychological response to "backing down" from something and he then returned to confront Zimmerman about his following him (perfectly legal, nad it's important to note that he asked Zimmerman why he was following him first, and again, that's Zimmerman's account of the event).
At that point,
again according to Zimmerman, Zimmerman reached into his pocket and THAT was when Martin hit him. There's no doubt that Martin was having a fear reaction, and his flight response was changed to a fight response. There's no other logical explanation for Martin's actions.
Where the debate comes in is whether or not Martin's actions were justified. Justification is based on the entirety of the circumstances and whether or not Martin's belief that he was about ot become the victim of a forcible felony was a reasonable belief in those circumstances.
That's a point where disagreement can occur. Not whether or not he was having a fear reaction, because if there was
no fear reaction, the entire event couldn't possibly have happened (martin would have casually continued home seemingly oblivious to Zimmerman had Zimmerman's behaviors
not triggered a fear reaction).
Your claim of self defence for Martin would not fly the moment he went back to confront Zimmerman.
He went back to
verbally confront Zimmerman (which was legally his right). Zimmerman's behavior
DURING that confrontation is what triggered his right to self-defense. You keep ignoring that bit by trying to claim that he returned to confront Zimmerman as though THAT was the attempted self-defense.
There is no evidence from witnesses or the 911 call that Zimmerman followed Martin but rather headed for his car.
Actually, the location of the body in relationship to the car proves that Zimmerman was doing something
other than returning to his car for those same five minutes. It would have taken less than 30 seconds for him to get from the location of Martin's body to his car but he continued to wander the area searching. The same evidence you argue against Martin
must be applied to Zimmerman equally.
Of course,
neither party was legally required to be anywhere else. Martin had a right to confront Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin. The thing that comes into play is who was the first to have a reasonable belief that they were about to become the victim of a forcible felony at the point of confrontation.
I believe that the first one to have that was Martin, based almost entirely on Zimmerman's own account of events, but supported by the witness testimony.