Again, you change what I said, and then argue against the change. I've said the evidence supports both scenerio's and we will have to wait for full disclosure. At this time we don't have access to Zimmerman's statements, those are sealed. All that has been in the press are third party declarations from family members.
You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?
If the gf testifies that Martin and Zimmerman spoke before the hostilities and Zimmerman's statement does say that Martin hit him from behind, then that would be conflicting evidence. Then it would be up to the jury to weigh credibility.
A teenager who is under tremendous pressure to lie in order to make a boyfriend look good v a guy who shot, and killed, said bf. Sounds pretty easy to me.
Actually I've presented 3 that meet the known facts of the situation. Statements are not necessarily "facts". For example you claim that Zimmerman's statement says he was hit from behind, yet the girlfriend's statement was that Zimmerman and Martin spoke to each other - that conflicts with Zimmerman's statement. Another example is that a witness reports watching at the time of the firearm discharge and that Zimmerman was on top while supposedly Zimmerman's statement is that he was on the bottom. Another inconsistency in statements.
Are you saying that it is impossible for Martin to asked Zimmerman anything after he hit him? Or are you just desperate to prove how stupid your position is?
By the way, that witness you are referring to did not say Zimmerman was on top, he, or she, said that it was dark, and that he, or she, thought it looked like the bigger person was on top. Until someone explains how someone can judge relative size in the dark with one person laying on his back and the other on top of him, I will regard that statement as worthless, just like anyone else who actually has an open mind will.
His training by police was not to physically inject himself into a situation. It will be up to the jury to apply what weight they wish to that if it is presented at trial.
He was trained? When? Please do not try to equate a single meeting with a police liaison with training, that will just make you look idiotic.
I believe of the two, only Zimmerman was ever arrested for a violent crime. Being arrested is a criminal record. The charges may have been dropped, but it is still a criminal record. I run background checks for employment purposes and we get back state and FBI criminal records all the time that show arrests and dispositions.
Being arrested is only a criminal record if you believe people are guilty until proven innocent. The official position of Florida, and every other state in this country, is that you do not have a criminal record unless you have a conviction on your record.
I haven't made up any facts.
Are you saying that you actually believe the stupid stuff you are saying is true, or that you are stealing the made up facts from other people?
I've repeatedly identified that I've provided that there are at least 3 scenerio's that fit the facts. Martin assaults Zimmerman. Zimmerman assaults Martin. Zimmerman assaults Martin and attempts unlawful detention. In the first two Zimmerman retains his self defense immunity and should be found not quilty. In the third Zimmerman is committing a forcible felony under Florida Statute 776.041 and his self defense immunity could be negated.
You have repeatedly tried to make up a situation in which Zimmerman is a felon, even though the state is not charging him with a felony, and thus has no right to self defense. I remember asking you to prove that any prosecutor in Florida had ever argued that successfully, and you just ignored me. now you are trying to say that is a possible explanation. Until you can prove that it is actually possible to argue that under Florida law, not just in your pretend world where ghosts are real, you have not actually presented it as a possible scenario. It would be easier to argue that Zimmerman was being controlled by aliens that a scenario that is as ridiculous as the one you keep insisting proves you are the one with an open mind.
That's what I've said consistently. Seems pretty clear that I've actually said things that I've actually said.
Yet you keep denying you actually said what you said.
If it doesn't apply to you. Then don't get worked up about it. This is an open message board, not a discussion conducted by PM. I post for the audience at large. If you don't like my posting style, then just bypass my posts.
It doesn't apply to anyone, because no one has said it. Mocking you is not getting upset. I actually enjoy mocking you, just like I enjoy mocking all idiots, I have no reason to bypass your posts.
I have no obligation to present any evidence that Zimmerman attempted to beat Martin to death with the back of his head. That seems to be something that occurred in your mind not mine.
It must have occurred to you, you saw the picture, yet you insist that the evidence is ambiguous enough to justify your assertion that it is possible that Zimmerman attacked Martin. I will ask you again, since you keep ignoring the question, why would a man with a gun attack a kid who he thought was acting suspicious?
1. We will have to wait for the autopsy report.
2. In 20-years I stood Shore Patrol many times and saw the results of fights. The injuries incurred during a fight are not necessary indicators of who started a fight. All they show is that someone was losing after it stated. We responded to incidents more than once where the person that started the fight had injuries, the one defending himself had no injuries at all.
How many times did you respond to a fight where the only person that was injured was the one with a gun?
The flight of imagination about Zimmerman attacking Martin with the back of his head is yours, not mine.
>>>>
It is not, it is me mocking your scenario that Zimmerman, who we know had a gun, started a fist fight.