George Zimmerman's Girlfriend Wants to Drop Charges, 'Be With Him'

He told him he didn't have one. Why did Martin then say "well now you do" and cold (*)(*)(*)(*) him?

Defense against what? You have a right to defend yourself against a imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. Martin was never presented with such a situation and in fact after having running back to the apartment he was staying with contact between them broken HE instituted contact again.

So if you look at me the wrong way I have a legal right to break your face? I think I would be in jail just as Martin would have been had he not been killed that night.

As proven in court that is exactly what he did.

We have the statements of the girlfriend and the timing of the calls all of which was proven in court. You have nothing to refute it.

No it is not, right by means right by, next too, very next too with the qualifier "right" attached to it, not two buildings down. The timing of his running also places him there. The fact remains he lost contact with Zimmerman and could have simply gone inside the apartment and be alive today. That is indisputable and was proven in the trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you have something to refute it and the statements from the investigators that his statements were credible and they had nothing to refute them it is amazing how you just attempt to dismiss them out of hand.

 

And when you have no evidence to back your position in the matter all you have left are such bromides and platitudes. It is amazing that all through the preliminaries all through the trial and now in the aftermath those who saw the self-defense and not guilty in the matter had the facts and evidence on our side and all the Martin defenders had nothing but baseless assertions and such bromides and platitudes.

 

You mean was it 10 or 12', no we can't quantifiy it that close. Was it at the T junction two buildings down or right by the apartment, it was right by the apartment. If you tell you child to come stand right by you it doesn't mean a block away does it. If I say I placed my glass right by the bottle it doesn't mean across the room does it. It is amazing who the Martin defenders try to change the English language to suit their case.

The girlfriend testified how long he ran, we have the record of the calls being dropped and re-instituted. We know from both that contact was lost and that when Zimmerman cross the T the first time there was no Martin there. We know that when he recrossed the T Martin had returned.

 

Because Z-Slime's answer was exactly what Martin would have expected out of a thug who was about to (*)(*)(*)(*) him up for being on his turf. There was obviously no good reason why the self-important little failure of a human should have been following Martin in the dark.

If he was worth any more than an open, over-filled garbage can as a Neighborhood Watch captain, Z would have identified himself, not smarted off like a street punk.

Yes, he was. He was being followed in the dark by a person who fit most of the profile of a boy bumper or mugger or a thug defending turf. We also know that that person turned out to be a psychopathic spouse abuser, so I have no reason to trust his word about being attacked.

There is no evidence of that. You have only the word of a known psychopath.

If you ask a legitimate question and the thug who has been dogging your tracks smarts off at you like a thug, yeah, you have a right not to wait for him to sucker punch you. For all we know, the sick little bastard was already going for his gun.

Had Martin killed him, Martin would have walked because it was obvious that the bastard was chasing him for no good reason.

No, it was not. The jury was just stupid.

The only thing that could have refuted Z's story was what a dead man saw. NOTHING is proven other than that Z is too stupid to trust with a weapon.

 

Certainly there was, to let the NSN dispatcher know what he did and what would saying no I don't have a problem give reason to assault him, seems that would deescalate rather than the opposite. In fact were Martin actual be engaged in an illegal act telling him that you were with the NW program would give him even more reason to attack and possibly kill the person.

Woulda coulda's don't count, Martin never had a reason to assault Zimmerman.

That is not in imminent danger and Martin had removed himself from the scene, Zimmerman had no idea where he was until he reappeared for the purpose of confronting Zimmerman.

His own statement to the girl friend on the phone and her recounting how long he ran along with the phone records all prove he made it back to the apartment where he was safe in sound, this is not in dispute as it was proven in court.

Martin did not return to have a conversation, he returned to assault Zimmerman.

Nope, there is not a shred of evidence he was threatened with serious bodily harm of death, for all Zimmerman they were in view of the police at that moment.

Yes proven in court regardless of you specious attack on the jury.

No evidence and witnesses could have refuted it, the fact remains the evidence and witness statements were overwhelming in agreement with Zimmerman's statements of events.

 

Actualy it was the first time. During the months leading up to the trial I purposfully stayed away from the in depth analyses out there, and just asked a lot of questions here.

What I know is that both sides have arguments rank with foregone conclusions, and the old "how else could it be" arguments

 

Right, you never ever read anything about Trayvon having jewelry on him. Yeah right. Happy Holidays. I guess I have to assess character before pretending they were never doing anything bad, I can't just blindly believe crap like that in support of some kid I only know because he was the presidents kid. Bet you didn't hear anything about that either.

 

I did hear Obama express hopes that justice would be done, without saying that meant Z was guilty.

But yeah....go back and search any of my archived posts during that time, you'll find nothing but questions. My focus was on relevant facts of the case, not character assasination. Martin's past was irrelevant to the case because Zimmerman didn't know Martin's past

 

July 2013
Quote Originally Posted by RPA1 View Post
His backpack was in his school locker! Screwdrivers ARE typically used in burglaries, the discussion wasn't about what a screwdriver is typically used for. A male burglar WOULD have women's jewelry in his backpack.
You>>I dunno, I sometimes use a screwdriver for screws....but then I use a kitchen knife for screws too when I leave my screwdriver in the car...and I also use the butt of a screwdriver as a hammer.

Boy...we are so threatened by everything now. I'm going to go destroy the sidewalk in front of my house, for my own safety, in fact...we should install those pads they have on goal posts in football games on everything hard, everywhere
Last edited by Goldwater; Jul 25 2013 at 06:21 PM.

March 2012

Quote Originally Posted by loong View Post
Doper Trayvon was found in school with a bag which had 12 pieces of women's jewelry and burglary instruments (this info on tape when the reportage dealt with the Doper Trayvon's THREE school suspensions).

You>> Ouch!....speaking ill of the dead.....man alive!

March 2012

Quote Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
No it is not. It shows that he may have been up to no good. I'm wondering how he got the women's jewelry. Will the public see it? Was it linked to a crime?

You>> But Zimmerman would have to have known about Martin's past for his persuit of Martin to be justified based on Martin's past.


So want to retract your lie now? You were involved in threads and actually discussed the jewelry issue.

 

Still waiting Margot, I even posted the law again for the umpteenth time, admit you are wrong and he did not commit an assault that night.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep even posted the law myself since she refused and away she ran again, typical of the Martin defenders when their specious assertions are met with fact.

 

Yeah I forgot about those.

What's the matter? have a tough Xmas?

 

Mines been great seems you have having to post blatant lies here.

 

I did not willfully try to decieve you, I simply forgot.

Fine.....be grumpy and paranoid, see if I care

 

Yeah right, threads going back for years mentioning the jewelry in which you responded, snarky in some cases, and now you say you never ever even heard about it. Right.

 

I thought I never heard about them because I forgot about them, that was months ago, and probably 1000 posts or more ago.

But that's how you righties roll...whenever a lefty is mistaken, or forgets something, they lied.

 

Is it a lie if we can produce a post where you obviously responded about it? I just am not one for the cutsy wootsy forgetful defense personally.

 

Ask yourself this question...if I would have remembered talking about that, and willingly told people I didn't...why would I ask someone to do an archive search, if I remembered talking about it, and knew it would be found? Don't be a derf.

I realize that I'm right so often, and many of you who are wrong so often really want to catch me being wrong. But you've simply caught me forgetting irrelevant aspects of the Martin/Zimmerman case.

I can only guess the reason I forgot about it is that is was A) months ago, and B) irrelevant to Zimmerman's foolish actions the night he killed Martin.

When people make stupid arguments, I am glad I'm not remembering some of them.

Hope you had a merry xmas Rose.

 

Considering this is a Zimmerman thread you really have to appreciate the irony.

 

Thanks for bringing that one all the way home.

 

So you are still asserting you were totally in the dark about something to which just last summer you were making snarky comments about are you. So if I use my search tools you are saying I will no other threads in which the jewelry was being discuss and you were participating?

 

Yes, now you understand. Perhaps you just overestimate my memory.

I don't actually have a memory now that I can call on, even though you showed me those posts.

I'm sure it's even less likely I would have remembered all that jewlery and screwdriver stuff because it was irrelevant to the case, and impending trial.

 

LOL.

Yes, yes, but Georges actions were questioned since he was 6, because that was somehow relevant as to why Trayvon just could not go back to where he was staying by the grace of his third suspension. To say Trayvons character did not matter is grasping big time.

 

It was relevant in the proceedings until the court ruled it would not allowed in the trial and appears in almost every thread about the issue in which you weaved in an out and as noted you injected your own snarky remarks about it so yes I rather believe you were pretending ignorance.

 

Holy cow! How blind can you get? I don't care what color the 17 yr old kid is. When you have any kid who's on his 3rd school suspension within 4-5 months, 12 pieces of jewelry, silver wedding bands, diamond earrings, etc are found in his backpack and he says he's 'holding it for a friend' and won't give a name....... everything about him and his lifestyle is relevant, whether it was brought up in the trial or not.....

 

George was on trial, not Martin, and that's why his poor character since 6 was relevant

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, can't admit you were wrong huh?...I would have to care for it to bother me.