Technically true of course. However, between the injuries, witness statements, and Precious' admission that Trayvon wanted to "whoop" Z's "ass" there was way more than necessary for reasonable doubt.
Which in NO way demonstrates that Martin had been the party who INITIATED an attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the only party who was armed. Only party susceptible to use his weapon to intimidate and threaten Martin which would have meant he would have been the initial aggressor. You and a couple of other folks have persisted in claiming that Martin had being the party who initiated an attack. The reality being that there was NO witness who confirmed such claim.
Again and again and so often mentioned in the variety of threads dedicated to the Zimmerman case, there was NO visual witness as to who attacked who in that alley.
There was a witness who saw Trayvon on top of Z. Trayvon has no injuries consistent with being attacked, but Z does. Trayvon has abrasions on his knuckles consistent with whooping somebody's ass.
Again and again, there was NO witness who could confirm that Martin initiated an attack on Zimmerman. Again, stop propagating your claim as if it were a proven fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman
It remains unknown who initiated a physical attack on who. Stop propagating the same old claim portraying Martin as the party who initiated an attack on Zimmerman as if there had been any visual witness to such claim.
Stop propagating the same old claim that we can't draw a reasonable conclusion about who attacked whom without having a "visual witness".
I repeat : you chose to believe (which belief has nothing to do with "reasonable conclusion") Zimmerman's version that Martin was hiding in bushes and just jumped on him in a gratuitous attack. There was no witness corroborating Zimmerman's version. No evidence supporting his version. My point stands as stated. Now to go back to the topic of this thread.
As if injuries were a necessity to prove that one party used threats and intimidation while attempting to block the party who is trying to leave.
It would have been evidence of such. Without it you have no evidence he blocked her egress. She might just as well been angry and wanted to intimidate him with her gun. I.e. she said "I've got something for your ass", went to retrieve her gun, came back and shot.
I might as well make Paris fit into a bottle via similar speculations. Again, injuries are NOT a necessity to prove that an individual was attempting to block another party from leaving. Again, injuries are not a necessity to prove that one party engaged in physical and verbal intimidation of another party.
Of course if you pursue to dismiss Rico's volatile behavior
They were both volatile. But only one committed a crime that carries a 20 year mandatory sentence.
I am shocked that you place (once more) on equal footing one party using the bathroom while the other is banging on that door, yelling and demanding they come out. I am not aware of anyone who would qualify the party in the restroom as being "volatile" while the other party is obviously in a fit of rage. You seem to really trivialize Rico's volatile behavior since he is the party who from the get go initiated a climate of insecurity via his fit of rage. I suppose in your mind the party who is attempting to leave and is being blocked is affected by a "volatile behavior". The party blocked from leaving via physical and verbal intimidation, demanding then that the intimidating and threatening party leaves is affected by a "volatile behavior". And the party who flew into a rage (unprovoked I will add) based on his concluding that Marissa sending pics to her ex husband of her infant daughter could only mean she had been cheating on him is to be placed on equal footing as her using the bathroom.
It is possible that in your mind such reaction to the pics on Rico's part is not an indication of an individual affected by a volatile behavior.
But a pursued dismissal of the above on your part would confirm the concerns I communicated earlier. I have no sympathy for anyone who would demand there be injuries to confirm that Marissa was subjected to an abusive behavior which could only convey a threat to her welfare.
That would have been physical evidence. Such evidence is sorely lacking in "exculpatory" column here.
Your remark demonstrates that you never read the several links I had posted expanding on what abusive behavior consists of. It is possible that in your mind you do not consider that Rico resorting to physical and verbal intimidation to prevent her from leaving does not constitute abusive behavior which conveyed a threat to her welfare. If that is the case, it would confirm my initial concerns regarding anyone who would trivialize such behavior and remove it from the category of abusive behavior unless there are injuries.
Why do you trust Rico Gray in his claiming now that he never abused any woman he had a relationship with?
I do not trust Grey. It is your side that places undeserved trust in Grey's deposition, which he later withdrew.
That did NOT address my question. Especially considering that as of now several of his ex partners have confirmed that he was abusive towards them. And the Judge assigned to the upcoming re trial on Dec. 1st is still reflecting on whether he will admit their testimonies. It appears you are skeptical as to Rico's history of abuse on several on his partners, to include Marissa. But of course anyone who believes that injuries are necessary to prove abuse is no going to recognize when abuse takes place. Which is exactly why my concerns.
FYI, Marissa's visit to the hospital when he had attacked her using physical violence on her while she was pregnant with their daughter, it will be demonstrated in her medical records.
Do you have any sort of source for this alleged attack? I only heard of it from you and Toni and neither linked to any source article or document confirming it.
If you actually took the time to read posts that were produced in a thread you are so invested in,produced during the time you log out and log back in, you would have noticed :
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...tence-overturned&p=77487&viewfull=1#post77487
https://niastories.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/marissa-alexander-case-study-final.pdf
Are you going to deny that such incident occurred? Or claim that she just obtained a RO at the drop of a hat? As you so often speculate negatively about victims and their intentions. Especially when they are female victims.
Are you actually buying his claim now that he never abused any of his ex partners?
No. I said that they were both abusive. You are the one that denies her being abusive despite her attacking him while out on bail.
You stated " they are mutually abusive spouses", placing on EQUAL footing both Rico and Marissa. The reality being that there is no history regarding Marissa of her having been an abusive spouse towards Rico in the course of their spousal relationship. Whereas regarding Rico :
1) RO resulting from his physical violence on Marissa.
2) Several of his ex partners now willing to testify as to his having been abusive with them.
DV victims are so hesitant to expose their abuser.
If that applies to female victims why not to male ones? I.e. if you are using that excuse for Grey's former partners, why not allow the same excuse for Grey himself vis-a-vis his deposition where he (as he later claims) tried to protect her.
Because the party who has a history of having been the abuser is NOT those women, is not Marissa either. But Rico.
From a recent post and to be challenged in relation to the above, you stated :
It is obvious the two still had feelings for each other.
What is obvious here, based on following her RO against Rico Marissa decided to request it be partially removed, her motivation was to allow him to still be in contact with her because she was pregnant with their child.
Which as I understand is rather common in abusive relationships - the abuser might truly love the abused spouse despite the abusive actions.
You actually do NOT "understand". It is the other way around. It is usually common for the victims (not the abusers) to "truly love" the abusive party while hoping the abusive party will improve their behavior with them. I cannot believe anyone would think that an abusive personality is capable of "truly love" the party they victimize. You have to have a very twisted definition of "truly love" to emit such statement.
And again, you completely ignore her attacking him while out on bail.
I do not. However contrary to you, I did not place Marissa on equal footing with Rico by stating "they are mutually abusive spouses". You made a statement I heavily challenged from the get go. The only one party with a history of persistent abusive behavior is Rico. And not just abuse on Marissa. But abuse on some of his ex partners.
That you placed her on equal footing with Rico by your statement when she was the actual victim of an act of violence on her which led to her getting an RO on him only denotes that you trivialized the effects on her of his act of physical violence, while you attempted to portray her as an equally abusive spouse. To include your placing her on equal footing with Rico regarding his volatile behavior. I detailed above why he is the party who exhibited a volatile behavior versus her being in the bathroom when he engaged in yelling at her while banging on the bathroom door, demanding she comes out. Up to that point, Marissa had not engaged in any act, any communication justifying his flying off the handle. Yet you portrayed her on equal footing with Rico. Noting here the extent of you being unable to distinguish abusive from non abusive behavior.
And duly demonstrated again as you believe that injuries are a necessity to prove that a person has been the victim of abuse. While dismissing all the documentation I had linked you to where I also asked you to clarify 2 of your statements which I quoted in that post :
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...tence-overturned&p=77473&viewfull=1#post77473
You never clarified your 2 statements. And of course did not pay attention to the content of my links.
