quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
.  LOL!  Two people ATTACKED you?  NOW I see why you keep referring to Martin's defense as an "attack".  And actually I DID give you an alternate meaning.  Just because it doesn't suit your claims doesn't mean it wasn't there.  Also, what we have is Martin's girlfriend's paraphrasing of what Martin said...not his exact words.  He may have said something like, "I can't run any more."  Or, when he said that he may have thought he had lost Zimmerman and didn't NEED to run any more.  But the fact that DeeDee said Martin was talking real low...like he was in hiding...and the fact that in one of Zimmerman's first statements to the police he said he saw Martin emerge from the shrubs is a pretty good indication that he was hiding and so said he wasn't going to run because that would expose his location to Zimmerman again.

So suddenly Dee Dee's memory of what happened which was previously sacred truth is dubious when it hurts your conclusion. If this is to be trown out so is everything else she said.

Neither "I can't run" or "I'm not going to run" harms my conclusion in any way.  Neither one, said while in hiding from a possible assailant, indicates an intent to attack that assailant, especially when considering that Martin had already run away and hid to AVOID that assailant.  Your supposition that he, for some unknown reason after running and hiding to avoid confrontation, then decides to attack that person is ludicrous.

Except of course by saying that on that one phrase Dee Dee must have misunderstood you must then throw out everything she said. Of course both of those fit your position but for you to use what was in the coversation at all you have to take it all, even the part thatblows your position out of the water. You can't logically say this is gospel except for the part where I need for him to say something different which is what you are doing.

So, uh, what happened to that college level reading ability you were bragging about in a different thread?  The word I used was "paraphrased", which you changed in order to try to make an arguement to "misunderstood".  If you'd like, I can give you a link to a good online dictionary so you can look up the difference for yourself. 

The fact of the matter is that "my position" is backed up by statements from both DeeDee AND Zimmerman.  But for some reason you aren't willing to disqualify EVERYTHING Zimmerman says when he is a know liar...only DeeDee because you claim she (YOUR word) "misunderstood".

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers

(in reply to BamaD)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


I mean, YOU can indulge in all the word-games you care to, but at the end of the day, when it's shown that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin first in his car, and then on foot, that they're all going to go "Yup, he pursued him he did..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

I've already explained repeatedly how the evidence shows that the encounter took place near the T intersection, 150 feet away from George's truck, where moments before George was without having any idea where Trayvon was, thus meaning Trayvon would have had to have returned to that spot from wherever he went for the encounter to have occurred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And then the Defense will point out that the only proof of following they have was not contemporaneous with the fight,

and therefore not legally relevant,
(that is pure asswipe)

quote:

no proof of George confronting Trayvon,
(except a dead trayvon with bullet from georges gun)

quote:

and lots of evidence that Trayvon had George pinned to the ground while George was sustaining injuries

moments before George fired the shot in fear of his life.
(no proof of this, and in fact, thats sort of why there will be a trial)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


I mean, YOU can indulge in all the word-games you care to, but at the end of the day, when it's shown that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin first in his car, and then on foot, that they're all going to go "Yup, he pursued him he did..."

And then the Defense will point out that the only proof of following they have was not contemporaneous with the fight, and therefore not legally relevant, and that the time period that is legally relevant there is no proof of pursuit,

quote:


no proof of George confronting Trayvon,

quote:


and lots of evidence that Trayvon had George pinned to the ground while George was sustaining injuries moments before George fired the shot in fear of his life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Martinez v. State and Johnson v. State say I'm right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

I've already explained repeatedly how the evidence shows that the encounter took place near the T intersection, 150 feet away from George's truck, where moments before George was without having any idea where Trayvon was, thus meaning Trayvon would have had to have returned to that spot from wherever he went for the encounter to have occurred.

The only person who says that George didn't have any idea where Trayvon was is George.

But George also says a lot of other things where aren't true, doesn't he? For instance, George is now on record as giving TWO DIFFERENT justifications for exiting his vehicle. Neither of George's reasons are valid however, and neither matches his expressed frustration and desire to prevent Martin from getting away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


I mean, YOU can indulge in all the word-games you care to, but at the end of the day, when it's shown that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin first in his car, and then on foot, that they're all going to go "Yup, he pursued him he did..."

And then the Defense will point out that the only proof of following they have was not contemporaneous with the fight, and therefore not legally relevant, and that the time period that is legally relevant there is no proof of pursuit,

You're really saying that IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to Trayvon Martin's death, George Zimmerman following him while in his car and while on foot isn't legally relevant?

Good luck with that.

quote:


no proof of George confronting Trayvon,

Except, of course for the testimony of Dee Dee who heard Zimmerman's approach. And of course, when you compare the credibility of Zimmerman vs. anyone else, Zimmerman loses.

And again, the Jury is going to want to understand what Trayvon Martin's MOTIVE in attacking George Zimmerman unprovoked would have been. If you're going to say that Trayvon Martin ATTACKED George Zimmerman, you damned well better be able to answer the question, "WHY?"

quote:


and lots of evidence that Trayvon had George pinned to the ground while George was sustaining injuries moments before George fired the shot in fear of his life.

Trivial injuries inconsistent with REASONABLE belief of an. immediate threat of great bodily harm, which of course, is relevant, compared of course to the fatal injuries Trayvon Martin sustained at the hand of George Zimmerman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD
The entire situation should never have happened and wouldn't have happened if George Zimmerman behaved responsibly and with common sense.

Probably, but that goes both ways. If Trayvon hadn't come back from wherever he'd run off to and confronted George, this never would have happened too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


I mean, YOU can indulge in all the word-games you care to, but at the end of the day, when it's shown that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin first in his car, and then on foot, that they're all going to go "Yup, he pursued him he did..."

And then the Defense will point out that the only proof of following they have was not contemporaneous with the fight, and therefore not legally relevant, and that the time period that is legally relevant there is no proof of pursuit,

You're really saying that IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to Trayvon Martin's death, George Zimmerman following him while in his car and while on foot isn't legally relevant?

Good luck with that.

quote:


no proof of George confronting Trayvon,

Except, of course for the testimony of Dee Dee who heard Zimmerman's approach. And of course, when you compare the credibility of Zimmerman vs. anyone else, Zimmerman loses.

And again, the Jury is going to want to understand what Trayvon Martin's MOTIVE in attacking George Zimmerman unprovoked would have been. If you're going to say that Trayvon Martin ATTACKED George Zimmerman, you damned well better be able to answer the question, "WHY?"

quote:


and lots of evidence that Trayvon had George pinned to the ground while George was sustaining injuries moments before George fired the shot in fear of his life.

Trivial injuries inconsistent with REASONABLE belief of an. immediate threat of great bodily harm, which of course, is relevant, compared of course to the fatal injuries Trayvon Martin sustained at the hand of George Zimmerman.

It would be relevant if Martin was on trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


You're really saying that IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to Trayvon Martin's death, George Zimmerman following him while in his car and while on foot isn't legally relevant?

Good luck with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


You're really saying that IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to Trayvon Martin's death, George Zimmerman following him while in his car and while on foot isn't legally relevant?

Good luck with that.

It's the law. Following prior to losing sight of Trayvon was a) not illegal, and b) not contemporaneous with the encounter, therefore it has no relevance to whether George was the aggressor or not.

The State has admitted it has no evidence that George confronted Martin, therefore it's going to be very hard to prove George the aggressor.

quote:

not contemporaneous with the encounter