@Frank Apisa,
Quote:Naturally, you are confining the word "attack" to mean physical confrontation. But the physical confrontation in this instance was initiated by Zimmerman...who was the initial aggressor as a stalker.
As far as I am concerned, he was the original attacker.
I'm not confining any definition, I'm using the real definition. You must be looking in the Clinton dictionary where words have different meanings. As far as your concerned? You are not concerned with evidence or rulings, so what is the point of your concern. Your concern is an opinion, and an opinion not based or backed by fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attack?s=t
verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
He attacked him with his bare hands.
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against:
to attack the enemy.
3.
to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4.
to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly:
He attacked his opponent's statement.
5.
to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse:
to attack the mayor's reputation.
6.
to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously:
to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7.
(of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.
Quote:t is possible...and even probable. Witnesses have said that he laid hands on Brown first.
You mean the same witnesses who said he was shot in the back with his hands up? You mean the same people who said they saw the whole thing when they later admit that they were not near by when events took place?
Quote:Quote:
Do you mean that in the same way you express that no robbery took place at the store?
Stop inventing stuff, Baldimo. I NEVER said no robbery too place at the store. Can't you ever indulge in conversation or debate without this kind of crap?
Quote:
Even though video shows he stole the blunts.
The video does not show that. I defy anyone to identify any blunts in that video...or to explain, based only on the video, what actually occurred. The video does not do anywhere near what you suppose it does.
I should say blunt papers. That is what they use those little cigars for, if you didn't know that. In the 90's it was called a Philly Blunt. I've had a few of them before. Black and Milds or Swisher Sweets are the most common.
You can't even be honest between these 2 statements. You say you never said the theft took place, but you have argued prior that it didn't take place. You tried to make up stories about what was taking place in the video. "Maybe he did some work for him, and he's taking the blunts as payment." You saying it showed everything but what it was showing. In denying what the video shows, you are denying the robbery took place. That is the evidence of what took place and you deny it for what it is. Like I said rose colored glasses.
Quote:Quote:
His partner in crime has even admitted that Mike stole the blunts. 15 minutes after committing a crime he is stopped by the police?
Once again the evidence isn't on your side. Do you have a pair of glasses you wear to avoid the truth? Are they rose colored?
Stop the nonsense.
In any case, we are not talking about any of that stuff...we are talking about who laid hands on whom first.
Not nonsense, facts. This gives the state of mind of Brown. He just stole something from the store, manhandled the store clerk who tried to stop him and 15 minutes later he encounters a cop. With the events of the previous 15 minutes fresh in his mind, you don't think that had an effect on how he behaved with Wilson? His fear of going to jail for the crime he had just committed?
Going by your above comment, keep in mind that the only person to lay hands on the other between Zimmerman and Martin, was Martin. Following someone is not laying hands on them now is it?
Quote:Quote:
My point is that you are wrong on every point and don't have a leg to stand on. Sit down before you hurt yourself.
Your "point" is dead wrong...although I doubt you have the spine to acknowledge that.
There is nothing to acknowledge and my spine is in it's proper place. You lack facts and are arguing only your own opinion and emotion. By the way, how do you think that DOJ investigation is going against Zimmerman? How long has it been now, 2 years? Do you think we will have any news before Holder leaves or do you think he will have his replacement give the news that there is no evidence that points to a civil rights violation and all investigations into the self-defense shooting by Zimmerman will be dropped. If Holder had a case, he would have presented it by now. His time in the limelight is at it's end and he is empty handed.
