I am not wrong and you are trying to deceive by very carefully wording your response. You might fool some people with those amateurish tricks, but not me.
1. All of the facts about the kid's past does not show that he was doing anything that would justify stalking him. 2. Zimmerman ignored a directive from the authorities to not follow Martin. 3. Any plausible story is easy to accept when the only other person who would know the truth is conveniently deceased.
Refman, you know I respect you and have much love for you. Would you be concerned if a teenager was wandering aimlessly around your house at night in the rain? Would you want a neighborhood watchman to intervene, before trouble happened? That's what Jorge Zimmerman did. He intervened selflessly on behalf of his neighbors in order to protect them. The reason Martin's history of violence and drug use is relevant is that it supports Zimmerman's story (passed a lie detector) as to why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Look, we've all read Martin's Twitter page -- the guy fashioned his own self as a rock hard gangsta. He enjoyed that characterization of himself. He was a 'tough guy' and a rebel. All of these things help to corroborate the notion that while Jorge Z was walking back to his car, Martin savagely attacked him... sucker punching him in the face and then beating Jorge Z within inches of his life. Only then did Jorge Z put an end to the fight. Only then.
You were fooled by a fake twitter account, where the name the account is the equivalent of "TM's brother". HAHAHAHA. Nobody names their own twitter account after their younger brother.
Actually it hasn't been shown that TM attacked Zimmerman. There is no past history of violence with TM. You've made up your mind, but did so without any close examination of the facts. Now that we all know that, there's no point in reading your responses in this thread anymore.
yes giddy, you go right ahead and believe the twitter account named "TM's brother" is really his brother. LOL!
My post was about your cautionary language upon which you base your certainty. It had nothing to do with any Twitter accounts.
I didn't know you could tell that a person was walking aimlessly just by looking at him...how did you learn to do that? And since he was walking home...how does "aimlessly" apply here? You seem to be confused. He was beaten within an inch of his life? Where did you read that? Can you link me? I'd like to see. Unless you're making all this up....
We don't know those facts. That's why people who are interested in the truth wouldn't put a story out there that claimed it was known.
Okay then you don't believe the account was a legitimate one. I was just saying that it isn't confirmed to be fake, but it's logical that is a fake one. That's why I used the language I did. Unlike TJ has done in this thread, I'd rather not say that something happened without certainty.
Has there been any physical evidence that contradicts GZ's version of events? I know that some don't think his wounds were serious enough but he does have them and they are consistent with his story of how thing unfolded in the hand-to-hand scuffle.
That was my point. Your assertion is cloaked in cautionary and tentative language yet you are just as certain in your claims.
The severity of his wounds are not consistent with his story, but they may be consistent with someone who was attacked or those of someone who attacked somebody else and got roughed up a little bit. We don't know. So we look at the different accounts of the witnesses. Either way what I was commenting on was TJ's claim that something based on a probably fraudulent twitter account was fact. Someone who believes that supposed twitter dialogue without any type of better confirmation is beyond gullible.
The lead investigator on the case recommended that GZ be charged with manslaughter. He also stated that he didn't believe GZ's version of the events. Convenient facts not in evidence for you apparently.
The lie detector believed Zimmerman, as did the accounts of witnesses and the police. The competing story, that of the media, has been riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, manipulations, and outright lies. You choose which one you'd like to believe. It's obvious to those of us who are not emotionally blinded by this case.
Obviously the lead investigator relied on the media for his evidence which is how he came to the conclusion that GZ was a liar. In fact, GZ by virtue of his lying about his assets is a confirmed liar in a court of law. He's also had a restraining order filed against him for domestic violence. He's also been arrested and charged with battery of a law enforcement official. GZ was also turned down for employment with the police. Obviously GZ is a troubled young man with violent tendencies as evidenced by his history and the police apparently have good reason not to find his story credible. Unfortunately, while the victim was drug tested, GZ, the killer, was never given a drug test so we will probably never know what kind of drugs or alcohol GZ was on when he went LAPD on TM.
That's more of one man's opinion than it is a fact. As T_J points out, the lie detector affirmed GZ's version of events. Why is that not good enough? I bet I know why.... I bet you think that is a fact, too.
