ElanJo said:
Bigga said:
"Unsurprising" that you actually believe the sh*t you type.
Yes, I gather that, but I asked why is it "now" (unsurprising) to you, not what you meant by unsurprising.
Why are YOU persisting with the "ground and pound" line when it has been said on here that that statement had been retracted? Using a false support again?
But it had't been retracted. He talked about it in the trial. To accuse me of using 'false support again' means that I've used false support before. I haven't. If you think I have, well, then prove it.
You said that Martin's death was "almost certainly justifiable" which is claiming Martin's death, being unarmed(FACT and not RETRACTED!), to Zimmerman's armed non-disclosure makes sense. You don't feel for the kid who had no chance against that.
Is this in reply to my question regarding value from assumption? Don't pretend that you know what I feel.
You stated some bull about pulling out a machete and having the ability to shoot that person dead before or some fucking bollocks. I mean, wtf has that got to do with this situation, that isn't even remotely similar? False supporting argument. AGAIN.
FFS, you're dim, I created the machete scenario to illustrate that you can still be justified in using deadly force even if you start the fight.
You even said some crap about 'not being able to retreat'? At what point does this become a relevance? When he was on the phone to the police where he could he let them handle the event? When he was suggested not follow Martin? When he was in his car? When the confrontation happened where he COULD HAVE disclosed his firearm before the fight?
Not being able to retreat is relevant, pertaining to the use of deadly force in classical self defense, because ordinarily you'd have a duty to retreat. If you're pinned down or backed into a corner or a dead end, you have no other option. This becomes relevant in this case once Martin is straddled on top.
When you arm yourself with a deadly weapon, how can you NOT be in a pre-meditative state for a threat? This means you have contemplated a situation before an event. that means you KNOW you may have / want to use it at some point.
If you want to use premeditated in that sense then OK, I guess. People normally don't use the word in that way. Taking an umbrella with you is usually described as being prepared for rain, we don't usually say we're in a pre meditative state for dryness/wetness (whichever way you want to look at it) but alright...
That's a dick of a statement, even for you!
Considering you haven't replied to my points in order and have brought up stuff I've said to other people, I'm not sure what statement you're referring to here
So who else corroborates Martin's movement except for Zimmerman? John Good tries to verbally stop a fight, did he also say that Zimmerman's life was 'in danger'? No. He said to 'stop' or 'cut it out' and that he was 'calling the police'.
Which movement exactly? Good said he thought it was serious as he went back inside.
How many fights have you witnessed where you have seen the guys stop cos someone asked them to? It's very rare and you're using this argument with a teenager.
If Trayvon was in fear there is reason to believe he would have stopped when someone else arrived on the scene.
Pathetic.
:'(
John Good was, indeed, asked about the 'ground and pound' description, but he also underlined that that was the only way he could describe what he saw as a complete action. To many people who see MMA, "ground and pound" means bringing individual hands, or double fists, down to the opponent's upper body/ facial area. John Good did not visually show this movement. In fact, he choose to visually move as two hands together, both arms parallel, and the whole movement causing his shoulders to raise and drop, repeatedly.
This did not indicate where his hands were in relation to Zimmerman's face. It could have been on his lapels, round his neck OR or on his face; there is no way of knowing. there is a way to deduce a clearer picture by common sense, though. Martin's hands round Zimmerman's neck would prevent him from 'screaming for help, two or three times'. Would you assume that hand strikes to the face would do the same, if the back of Zimmerman's head was against the concrete? I think this scenario is also unlikely as Zimmerman would be highly concussed and disorientated to reach and discharge his weapon.
This leaves the lapels(this is after the initial tussle, Zimmerman may have sustained those injuries in both of them falling to the ground) where Martin may have grabbed Zimmerman and is shaking him. Zimmerman would be 'bucking, allowing him to 'cry for help', but also allowing him to reach for his concealed weapon. It also covers what John Good saw in a snapshot with his description.
'Life in danger'? Unlikely.
I asked who else "corroborates Martin's movement" as in saw Martin 'disappear and reappear again' as Zimmerman describes? Just Zimmerman, I think. Unless you have a supporting witness I missed?
Your 'machete' argument is shit, as well you know. I pre-empted your response by framing it in comparison to the unarmed Martin case. See the difference? You truly are predictable.
You also choose to compare the arming of a deadly weapon(again something I inserted in case you chose to be pedantic and guess what...?) against an 'umbrella'. Not sure since when an umbrella was created to take a life on purpose. But, hey, this is you I'm talking to, isn't it...?
I ask about how many fights you may have witnessed where people break apart when asked to stop. You choose to ignore a valid question and frame Martin within your response. this'll be Martin unafraid to fight a man bigger than him as he didn't know he had a gun. Was it an unreasonable question?? No.
Therefore, we come back to the "now unsurprising" observation.
Am I surprised at your continuing predictability...??
