Imho, the keys on the sidewalk are an indication that GZ went back to his truck and got the keys after he exited his vehicle.
The keys correspond to his account of what happened. If they were found by Martin’s house or some other location then that would be a contradiction to his account. While the keys do not prove he was there the entire time they are an indication of where the physical confrontation began which places Zimmerman there at that time.
The State has to prove otherwise.
This presumes that the keys were dropped as a result of the confrontation, a conclusion that exists only in your imagination.
I’ve got to go right now but this entire line of argument is legally pointless in court. He clearly called the police on a suspicious person, he clearly tried to keep him in sight by car and on foot. There is no evidence that he tried to confront Martin. He complied with the suggestion from the dispatcher not to follow Martin. The evidence outside of Zimmerman’s testimony of who initiated contact is that of Martin’s girlfriend and in her version Martin confronts Zimmerman.
So up to the initial contact made by Martin Zimmerman did everything he should have done and was legally entitled to do. There is no indication from the conversation as related by Zimmerman or Dee Dee that justified Martin’s actions. He died because he was beating someone and there were no signs it would stop or that anyone would intervene and stop him.
:rolleyes:
What’s the matter, cat got your tongue?
no, it’s just the likelihood of someone dropping an item in their hand when struck is pretty high. You’re trying to use my observation of your imagination of what Zimmerman thought as the same argument against physical evidence.
I didn’t imagine the keys fell where they fell. They are located where Zimmerman said he was struck. His testimony is evidence and the location of the keys backs up that evidence. It’s unlikely that he lost his keys in your imagined search for Martin and their unknown location just happens to match up with his account.
umm so? It doesn’t seem to change the details of the argument at hand.
If you’re not enjoying yourself, do something else. If you only want to debate about things which are not “legally pointless” you’re free to abstain from any discussion you choose, afaik. I just was responding to your posts, iirc.
Much of that is based on GZ’s various accounts. The only problem with that is that his accounts don’t seem credible.
You are saying it is a bullshit scenario even though is is actually consistent with the physical evidence. Is you definition of bullshit anything you don’t agree with?
Maybe you should become more familar with what Susan Simpson has written:
That sounds to me like she is actually on the weak case side, even though she thinks Zimmerman is guilty.
I just mention that because it demonstrates a much stronger interest in the case than other bloggers. It doesn’t actually give her access to any data that isn’t available to the media.
I don’t understand this part. He remembered the name of the eastern street, so was apparently trying to get a house address.
Your ignoring the fact that Zimmerman’s only working flashlight was on the keychain. A person might drop his keys at night and not notice until he got back to his car, but it is illogical that he would drop his flashlight, when he is actually using it and not pick it up. The flashlight was on when the police got there.
That kind of eliminates the drop the keys before the confrontation scenario.
The witnesses on the scene after the shooting tend to eliminate a post confrontation drop also.
And yet funny enough, he never told the dispatcher what that house address was. He apparently hiked all the way over there for absolutely no reason. And this makes sense to you. Right.
What evidence besides Zimmerman’s say-so indicates that Trayvon was the aggressor? It’s not illegal to ask someone why they’re following you.
Plus your quote is the same one that emeraldia posted a page or two ago. Not easy =/= weak.
That is a separate matter from saying that he was looking for a street sign. My guess is that he intended to give that address to the police when they called him. Either that or his light wasn’t bright enough to see any. Or maybe he just changed his mind. Could be a number of things.
The guy is going off the deep-end now based on his last two posts. He has quite the little hate-group over there.
Just a hunch, but the more likely thing is that he was lying when he said that’s what he was doing.
I am sure not easy != strong.
Zimmerman’s injuries are evidence. The prosecution actually has to prove that Zimmerman initiated the assault without leaving a mark on Martin. The defense doesn’t need proof.
Based on the current evidence, I don’t think the defense can win the SYG hearing, but the trial is looks very favorable to the defense.
Interestingly enough, some local attorneys, that have actually tried SYG hearings, think Zimmerman has a pretty good shot at a SYG hearing. I don’t see it with Lester presiding.
Another interesting point.
"
In his re-enactment he says he thought to look for a street sign so he got out of the vehicle but couldn’t find a street sign, (no shit?), and then decided to get an address of where he wouldn’t be and wasn’t parked because there were no addresses on the backs of the buildings to his north.
Afaict, he “hiked all the way over there” and then gave directions to his truck.