So cite the evidence you think we need to examine to come to your point of view.Just examine the evidence and it's perfectly clear.
Its a pretty simple request.
So cite the evidence you think we need to examine to come to your point of view.Just examine the evidence and it's perfectly clear.
There is no evidence here, just a reassertion of an already refuted point that you keep making without being able to actually back it up with any facts. Zimmerman has already been shown to have stopped following Martin after 20 yards, when asked by the non emergency responder on the line with him. What part of the calls led you to make this conclusion?The most important part of the testimony are the calls made by Zimmerman to dispatch in setting the stage for confrontation he clearly wanted by following the kid even when asked not to.
I already did that yesterday hereI suppose I don't think it has been refuted. Can you point out how and when those initial calls have been refuted as evidence that Zimmerman was on a mission looking for a trouble?
Which has already been shown, by the prosecution's own witnesses, including Rachel Jeantel's testimony that Martin moved to his father's house, and the neighbors who all testified to where the conflict occurred at the other end of the complex, to be true.The question is why people like you keep making this assertion despite it being completely and utterly refuted by the evidence.
This timeline has turned out to be virtually completely accurate... by the prosecution's own witness testimony.
Citation required.Sounds like they both were always looking for trouble and looking to play the hero.
numbers do you have any idea what you're saying with this statement?Zimmerman's friend testified that he and george liked to have a round chambered (it's also required apparently) in case they needed to protect other people or themselves. Sounds like they both were always looking for trouble and looking to play the hero.
and GZ admitted to have practiced MMA recently. your point?Additionally, The witness just testified about how they practised scenarios where one arm was broken or they were injured, whereby they used their off hand to fire a gun to presumably be heroes.
No, you didn't. You cited evidence that they carried a loaded pistol. You have yet to cite any evidence to justify your conclusion on their mindset for doing so.I gave the citation in the first part of the sentence silly goose.
The relevant point is the person's thought processes with respect to their role playing as wanna be heroes protecting people from the scary people in the world. Zimmerman and his friends seem to live in a fantasy world and from the testimony it appears like they were always looking for trouble.numbers do you have any idea what you're saying with this statement?
why would you ever carry a firearm WITHOUT a round chambered? you know... guns dont just fucking go off.
Pure presumption on your part as to their mindset.The relevant point is the person's thought processes with respect to their role playing as wanna be heroes protecting people from the scary people in the world.
Citation required.Zimmerman and his friends seem to live in a fantasy world and from the testimony it appears like they were always looking for trouble.
How are they role playing? He carries a firearm for the exact reason that he's being prosecuted for.The relevant point is the person's thought processes with respect to their role playing as wanna be heroes protecting people from the scary people in the world.
A situation that he created presumably because of him wanting so badly to be a hero. His friend jsut testified that he liked to give police type commands to get people to comply with his requests. He's not a cop.How are they role playing? He carries a firearm for the exact reason that he's being prosecuted for.
There was a fight.. and he was losing.
"Presumably."A situation that he created presumably because of him wanting so badly to be a hero.