It’s not insulting to bring up for about the 99th time that you continue to post a made up scenario that never happened, attribute motivation to a man you never met much less know, and a complete disregard for the facts, the diligence of the jury, the process.
What made up scenario. Oh look here, you have to get in the last word.
All falsehoods, I have not posted any made up scenarios but one time in this thread to show other versions are just as feasible as George Zimmerman. That Zimmerman has a narrative but it is not proven by fact.
My last word to you since you don’t bother to address posts:
Are you confusing me with someone else? I have not ignored responding to posts.
- Martin was acting suspiciously in the context of the time of day, the weather, and his behavior. If he had been proceeding directly home instead of wandering around appearing to be looking into homes, he would not have caught Zimmerman’s notice
We know this. Is wandering around looking at homes a misdemeanor? Trespassing?
Is this again, only George Zimmerman’s word? Does it go from “looking at homes” on the 911 tape to “looking into homes?”
Please find the exact quote, if I may, where Zimmerman even says “Trayvon Martin was looking into homes”. That is not ready to be found. I even accepted one poster’s word on this so as not to be overly argumentative and just accept, “okay, so the reconstruction says Trayvon actually looked into homes”, yet now, with your demeanor, perhaps this exact point needs to be proven to see who is actually stating falsehoods.
And you say others are stating falsehoods??
- Zimmerman was on his way to Target to buy groceries when he noticed Martin. He was not on Neighborhood Watch patrol although his involvement on NW perhaps made him more aware of neighborhood crimes and thus more observant of apparent strangers acting strangely
Do you think we are stating something we don’t already know??? That’s two of them and number one is not consistent. We don’t know if it is a statement of fact “Martin looked INTO homes”.
- Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. If anything the reverse is true based on testimony by multiple sources
I have not said Zimmerman stalked Martin. Did I quote someone who said so from a news article?? Possibly, but I have never said that.
As to multiple sources, Zimmerman would assert Martin sucker punched him. I’m not sure if we have multiple sources unless Rachel Jeantel’s testimony may suggest that which has been discounted by many on this forum.
Looks like you aren’t scoring high on the truth meter.
- Martin could have escaped, in fact he did get away from Zimmerman
Yes, people can escape but this is not 100% proven that one can escape safely.
- He chose to turn around and confront Martin
From the defendant’s testimony and perhaps Rachel Jeantel’s testimony reflects this. Little else does.
- Zimmerman sustained severe injuries and threat to his life BEFORE he pulled the gun.
Actually, a semi-broken nose and abrasions to the back of the head are not severe injuries, score another for you in the wrong column.
“Threat to his life” is debatable. We can witness many fights and say the winner is threatening the life of the loser. We simply do not know.
We do know in Martin’s interview, he asserts the stranger Trayvon Martin says “Tonight you are going to die”, this may not be in the initial interview but on the subsequent ones after he may have seen his Judge Father and happens to strengthen the case for self-defense.
- He shot Martin one time, he did not empty his gun
Certainly I have never said Zimmerman emptied his gun. I think we all know the basic facts of this situation. Perhaps you are confusing me for someone else.
NOTHING you claim is true other than the obvious fact that Martin is dead and Zimmerman held the gun. That does not make him guilty of manslaughter much less Murder 2
Your statement is an ABSURDITY! You have not shown ONE thing I have said that was FALSE unless for hypothetical reasons, I brought up a counter-scenario only in pointing out the theory many here accept as True, Zimmerman’s version is basically ONLY his narrative as well.
In the light of that, that we only have Zimmerman’s testimony to many of these statements, there is NO reason to assert a different set of events, but i only did that in one case to MaryJK to indicate Zimmerman’s defense is largely a theory too because we know so little.
The 911 tape and a few witness who saw a struggle in the dark, there is not that much evidence either way, hence, he can’t be convicted of the crime.
However, I think there is ample evidence that his conduct is not exemplary and one can seriously question his responsible gun-ownership.
