• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George Zimmerman witness list now tops 200

Who, Z? You think Z is going to take the stand? Heheh...

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

It boggles my mind Z supporters are still claiming Z didn't follow TM.

Following someone means squat....It's not illegal nor criminal to follow someone

Reason why, the state is not charging Z for merely following.

Read, the affidavit
 
Following someone means squat....It's not illegal nor criminal to follow someone

Reason why, the state is not charging Z for merely following.

Read, the affidavit

OMFG!!!!! lock me up!!!! I follow people every day. I am a serial follower
 
Following someone means squat....It's not illegal nor criminal to follow someone

Reason why, the state is not charging Z for merely following.

Read, the affidavit

I never said it was illegal, I implied it was provocative.
 
OMFG!!!!! lock me up!!!! I follow people every day. I am a serial follower


You do understand the Pross will eviscerate Z's contention he broke off the "following" and was headed back to his truck to meet the cops?
 
The reason for calling a lot of witnesses from the police is to establish the obvious fact that the prosecution had nothing to justify an indictment of Zimmerman on any charges in the first place, for one reason. It's purely a politically motivated railroad job generated by media pressure and racist hacks like Sharpton and his ilk. As far as I know, the DA there hasn't even bothered to investigate Martin's burglary tools and where the jewelry in his backpack came from, so they're hardly being objective in their conduct, plus their witnesses have already been shown to be liars. What else is there for them to do but continue to lie, since the reasonable alternative is to drop all charges.
 
You do understand the Pross will eviscerate Z's contention he broke off the "following" and was headed back to his truck to meet the cops?

and? still doesn't change the fact that following someone is not illegal.
 
and? still doesn't change the fact that following someone is not illegal.


nor the fact that the state's lead investigator has already stated they have no evidence to show Z was not headed back to his truck at the time of the envounter.
 
and? still doesn't change the fact that following someone is not illegal.

So you agree Z didn't break off his "following" when told to do so?
 
nor the fact that the state's lead investigator has already stated they have no evidence to show Z was not headed back to his truck at the time of the envounter.

But they do...
 
So you agree Z didn't break off his "following" when told to do so?

I agree that is totally irrelevent to the question "is he guilty of murder?"
 
I agree that is totally irrelevent to the question "is he guilty of murder?"

As i've said many times the State over charged but believe they can make a manslaughter charge stick.

It's important because the State will argue it was Z's incessant "following" of TM that put TM in fear for his safety, causing him to first run and then hide and because Z didn't break off his "following" provoked a violent response.

It is also important because it shows once again Z was lying in his written statements AND the video walk through and nothing he says can be taken at face value by the jury.
 
As i've said many times the State over charged but believe they can make a manslaughter charge stick.

It's important because the State will argue it was Z's incessant "following" of TM that put TM in fear for his safety, causing him to first run and then hide and because Z didn't break off his "following" provoked a violent response.

It is also important because it shows once again Z was lying in his written statements AND the video walk through and nothing he says can be taken at face value by the jury.


sorry, but being followed is not grounds to launch a violent response.
 
sorry, but being followed is not grounds to launch a violent response.

Well, since Z is lying we don't know all that went down, do we.
 
Well, since Z is lying we don't know all that went down, do we.

we know that, for reasons unknown, TM decided to stop and wait for GZ instead of proceeding to the safety of his father's girlfriend's home
 
we know that, for reasons unknown, TM decided to stop and wait for GZ instead of proceeding to the safety of his father's girlfriend's home

And has been pointed out a hundred times, it also might be reasonable to conclude if TM was in fear he might not want to lead the cause of that fear to where he and his family lived.
 
And has been pointed out a hundred times, it also might be reasonable to conclude if TM was in fear he might not want to lead the cause of that fear to where he and his family lived.

and has been pointed out a thousand times. TM had outrun GZ. GZ had no idea where he was. TM, if he was in fear, could have been "home" or 3 blocks away in any direction before GZ ever saw him. Instead he chose to stop and lay in wait.
 
I never said it was illegal, I implied it was provocative.


Again, means squat

You have to understand the concepts of provocation as they apply to self defense, dude

Z asking M about his presence, Z following M, Z going for his cell phone is NOT a provocation for being sucker punched in the nose.

Physical contact...like a shove or push *might* be a provocation
 
And has been pointed out a hundred times, it also might be reasonable to conclude if TM was in fear he might not want to lead the cause of that fear to where he and his family lived.

M was not in fear because he would have called 911 plus he was a few feet from his dad's house and did not enter
 
and has been pointed out a thousand times. TM had outrun GZ. GZ had no idea where he was. TM, if he was in fear, could have been "home" or 3 blocks away in any direction before GZ ever saw him. Instead he chose to stop and lay in wait.

And has been pointed out it is reasonable to believe TM heard Z's car door alarm when opened and closed. It is reasonable to believe TM believed Z was conitnuing following him and that is why he hid instead of continuing to Green's home.
 
Again, means squat

You have to understand the concepts of provocation as they apply to self defense, dude

Z asking M about his presence, Z following M, Z going for his cell phone is NOT a provocation for being sucker punched in the nose.

Physical contact...like a shove or push *might* be a provocation


But exposing his firearm while "going for his phone" is.
 
M was not in fear because he would have called 911 plus he was a few feet from his dad's house and did not enter


Yes, running and hiding is not evidence of fear...
 
And has been pointed out it is reasonable to believe TM heard Z's car door alarm when opened and closed. It is reasonable to believe TM believed Z was conitnuing following him and that is why he hid instead of continuing to Green's home.

so why did he not continue to "hide" instead of coming out to confront GZ?
 
Yes, running and hiding is not evidence of fear...

except he was not running or hiding. he was walking and talking on the phone with his friend :shrug:
 
so why did he not continue to "hide" instead of coming out to confront GZ?

Because Z continued his "following" and saw TM. The jig was up.
 
Back
Top Bottom