Posted on 07/01/2013 5:17:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
From the same web page:
“In all states, however, if the unarmed attack is of such ferocity that it nevertheless raises a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, the use of deadly force in self defense would be justified.”
I will be waiting for your apology tomorrow when O’Mara seeks to rehabilitate GZ’s responses to his interrogation about getting out of the car.
Oh, so you are saying this is a lie??? Okay:
Ah, Brandi Greene, who stated that skittles was on her porch!
How do all these statements get overlooked??
729 posted on Monday, July 01, 2013 2:48:50 PM by AllAmericanGirl44 (’Hey citizen, what’s in YOUR closet?’)
not until you stop making comments about me...
Answer....She didn't tell us everything. She even heard the shot...and knew Tray didn't carry.
Did she say that under sworn deposition?
I have been listening to the testimony.
And the only thing that has gone Bernie’s way is that interrogation tape for more than one reason BUT
O’mara is cutting through it.
Of course, I guess some thing he could have just sat down and everything would be okay.
I also am an admirer of Donald Rumsfeld, and have always respected you on FR, but now you are losing me.
What is your point, other than arguing an arcane detail that totally escapes me. So many long time Freepers have politely suggested that you drop it.
What did I miss, or better said, what have you missed? Often we (me included in that proverbial “we”) leap to a conclusion that proves to be wrong, even if we had the best of intentions.
It does no harm to go back, retrace, reconsider, and figure out where we got off-track and went down the wrong path. This is how most of us learn, if we are mindful of our propensity for error.
Please do that, RummyChick, retrace, for you have so much at stake on this forum if you lose the respect of those of us who once enjoyed your posts.
Some of us are now bewildered by your belligerent stance on this matter, and just can’t figure out where you got so confused.
Like you, I could be wrong. (If I remember right, I was, once) (/sarc, for I do not wan’t to count how many times “that once” was!)
GZ clearly states he was “afraid” and “fear” was the reason he didn’t confront Martin when he was circling GZ’s car.
It’s a problem. Not a large one though.
In fact, such a statement made by Zimmerman ABSOLUTELY AFFIRMS HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY TRAYVON MARTIN.
If Zimmerman didn't want to confront Martin from the relative safety of the car because he was afraid, that's a pretty reliable indication he didn't go out on foot looking for a confrontation.
He went out on foot looking to see if he could keep track of where Martin went. Martin was going where a car wouldn't go, and he wanted to keep him in sight until the police could arrive so he could tell them where the suspicious person went.
It's the exact same thing I would have done. Track, not confront.
Zimmerman gave clear indication by his statement that his goal was NOT a confrontation.
So again, the point all supports Zimmerman's account of events.
If I were MOM I would not have any further questions of the investigator. His last question was the killer? He got him to admit that in his professional opinion he believed Zimmerman’ s testimony. I think the reason he paused was he wanted to let that sink in to the jury. I would end it there.
We’ll see if he follows my advice. :-)
Ah.....We’re assuming that Tray bought one bag of skittles. Do we know that?
It does.. but I guess you aren’t understanding that you LOSE the right if you are the aggressor ***UNLESS*** you gain it back.
And there are ways listed to gain it back or in other words RECOVER
Maybe this will help
“As previously mentioned, it is is possible that the State will argue that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. As the aggressor he would not be eligible to argue self-defense unless he first “recovered his innocence.” A condition to “recovering innocence” is that you have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” or that you “withdraw from physical contact with the assailant.” (An alternative means of “recovering” innocence comes into play when the aggressor’s non-deadly attack is countered by a deadly-force attack.)
Have you considered starting your own live thread according to RC’s observations? Really, you are getting tedious. Live threads are tough enough to go through for us cubicle bound folks. Your perseverations are even pissing off the normally even tempered among us. Please. Give it a rest. Or your own thread.
Yes, we know he only baught one bag.
Once there was a time where ALL posters who posted on the subject REFUSED to believe me about the British law as it pertained to Obama’s father ..I was the first one to bring it to this site
...despite the fact that I posted the law....posted the governments documents talking about the law..etc....people refused to believe it.I refused to budge..despite the claims that some immigration lawyer knew what he was talking about..etc Can’t remember his name but he didn’t know what he was talking about.
I was right. I knew I was right.
I don’t care how many people don’t believe me about that interrogation tape. O’MARA MUST rehabilitate Zimmerman’s responses
I look at ALL sides..not just the sides people here want to see.
His answer was “provoked” by the interrogator...”Fear I guess” is not “He scared me to death”... His intention was never to confront Tray...just obtain info for the cops....
about the skittles??? I don’t know.
Some people theorize he went back to the house to drop off the drugs and then went to find GZ.
It’s possible.
Unless you know something I don't, Zimmerman's weapon was completely concealed.
Almost everyone who carries a weapon these days does so concealed.
How many years have you been practicing law?
“That is just as important as the question of why GZ got out of the car.”
Why did he get out? To see where Martin went.
What do you find complex or amazing about that?”
Keep listening tomorrow to O’mara.
PS...Martin’s mother wants it to be that GZ got out of the car to find trayvon NOT that he got out of the car to look for the street sign
That might give you a clue as to why it is important.
It's like the difference of:
Thou shall not KILL vs. Thou shall not MURDER.
MURDER is key. There are provisions when killing might be righteous but MURDER is not one of them.
I was glad to hear of GZ's faith. Faith - not restricted to Sunday mornings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.