Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1771472" data-attributes="member: 1132">And I didn&#039;t say you did specifically, but:Because you have no basis for forming the &quot;opinion&quot; that Zimmerman EVER initiated contact with Martin, and certainly not that he was an actual aggressor, either verbally or physically. Simply following someone while on the telephone is not the basis for branding someone an aggressor. Martin&#039;s female friend on the phone is not a witness to the event. Her testimony is hearsay and should be struck as such. Could he have initiated some form of contact? Absolutely. However, the burden of proof that he initiated ANY contact remains on the prosecution. Something their slipshod affidavit does not do. As a matter of fact, the affidavit is VERY thin on facts.&nbsp; <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :(" data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1771472, member: 1132"] And I didn't say you did specifically, but: Because you have no basis for forming the "opinion" that Zimmerman EVER initiated contact with Martin, and certainly not that he was an actual aggressor, either verbally or physically. Simply following someone while on the telephone is not the basis for branding someone an aggressor. Martin's female friend on the phone is not a witness to the event. Her testimony is hearsay and should be struck as such. Could he have initiated some form of contact? Absolutely. However, the burden of proof that he initiated ANY contact remains on the prosecution. Something their slipshod affidavit does not do. As a matter of fact, the affidavit is VERY thin on facts. :( [/QUOTE]

Verification