Neither is defending yourself.

That's kinda the whole point of the discussion, in case you missed the last 3 weeks or something.

 

-----signature-----

No. Pursuing someone is not a crime.


Does that make it easier for you to understand the answer to your own question.

If you are pursuing me at night with a gun I'm not going to assume you're there to ask me directions.

Granted, that also depends upon when it became apparent that Zimmerman had a gun. I'm pretty sure I know what Zimmerman is going to say about that. Too bad Martin can't tell us his side of the story.

 

-----signature-----

I don't think knowing he has a gun is enough.


If Zimmerman had the gun out and was waving it around sure. Although you have to say Martin gets a darwin award if that was the case.

True, but 17-year-old boys aren't typically known for their overabundance of caution. I doubt Zimmerman was waving it around, but Martin still could have noticed by the placement of Zimmerman's hands that he had a concealed weapon. Zimmerman doesn't exactly strike me as one to take the subtle approach, either.

 

-----signature-----

I tend to do that when they change their story when pressed, like they did about how the science works.

 

-----signature-----

You have to be pretty stupid to attack a guy you know has a gun and then be punching him in the head instead of actually taking his gun away from him.


I doubt he knew he had a gun.

How do you know what they were paid to say? They were paid by newspapers to analyze the tape.

"Two audio experts analyzed them to figure out who is screaming for help. Zimmerman's supporters say it's him screaming but the experts say that's probably not the case.

Primeau, and audio analyzing expert, says "There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice. As a matter of fact after 28 years of doing this I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

When asked, "ou can put a percentage on that?," Primeau replied, "Boy, that's a tough question. I'm going to say about 95."

The audio analysis is not 100% accurate. Both say it's unlikely the screams heard on the call came from Zimmerman.

However they say they cannot determine exactly who was screaming since they have no samples of Martin's voice."

95%. And you still play stupid.

Or maybe you're not playing.

Lets face it, if they had a video of Martin tied up and Zimmerman shooting him in the back of the head you'd still argue. I state it again, let me know when you are back to accepting reality as it is rather than as you want it to be.

There is not a lot of things proven in this case but one thing that has been proven; some of you are self retarded.

 

-----signature-----

Zimmerman's own report stated that Martin was trying to take his gun from him, or at least one story reported as such.

 

-----signature-----

You insinuated that the voice analysts tried to hide the information and only released it under pressure. That doesnt appear to be true.


You are also telling us that the analyst suddenly changed his threshold (in Zimmermans favor, but you didnt seem to focus on that as it didnt help your argument) when 'confronted'. There was no 'confrontation', you just threw that in there to make it sound suspcious.


The articles do not go into great detail on this threshold, but what is provided does mention two seperate measuring sticks. 90% = a 'positive match' and 60% = analyst feels comfortable they are from the same source.


Seems to me that different thresholds indicate different levels of certainty for this analyst.


By interjecting your own editorial comments you are trying to change this into deceptiveness.