Sure I am.
So, the basic premise is that unless there is evidence that it didn’t happen the way Zimmerman said it did, his version must be accepted.
Sure buddy.
You are definitely
Unless there is evidence that it didn’t happen the way Zimmerman said it did, he will be acquitted.
Bottom line is this: maybe perhaps people are doubting Zimmerman because they have found holes in his story. Maybe he is giving the reason for doubt.
No one has to accept what that man says.
If you kill someone and your story of how you killed them doesn’t quite make sense, that’s not going to bode well for you, in any circumstance.
For me to believe Zimmerman, I would have to accept that Martin “doubled back” in the time frame he said.
I would have to accept that Zimmerman,the armed former bouncer, who admitted not being afraid of Martin and who admitted following him was really in fear of his life, even if Martin DID “double back”
You know what, he might have been in fear of his life.
I am pretty sure bank robbers and rapists and muggers might fear for their lives as well if their victims fight them.
Doesn’t mean they should be allowed to take a self-defense claim, does it?
Completely missed my point.
I DON’T HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT HE SAID.
I am under no obligation to.
I think he is lying.
I don’t have to accept his BS.
No one cares what you accept or don’t accept. What’s important (at least to Zimmerman et al) is what the jury can accept or not accept. And the jury cannot invent evidence when there isn’t any. If there is no evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder, then the jury cannot convict him for it no matter how “creepy” they find him.
No, they shouldn’t be allowed to take a self-defense claim, because the law specifically doesn’t allow them to do so. For Zimmerman, the law specifically does allow him to do so. You seem to have difficulties understanding this simple fact.
Who are you to make a statement like that?
Then likewise, who should care about what you accept or not?
What the hell is this thread for then?
Such arrogance.
No one. What’s important is what the jury can or cannot accept. And as I said before, the jury cannot invent evidence out of nothing, even if they find the defendant “creepy”.
No, it’s not a ‘simple fact’.
Don’t pursue people with a loaded gun and shoot them.
He could have met the police at the clubhouse. This is on the 911 call he made. Instead, he told them to call him. Why?
The only reason I can think of is to continue following Martin. He knew he would be moving around, that’s why.
Don’t fight/injure people who may have a loaded gun.
Don’t misunderstand me, I will repeat, I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt.
There is no way I can defend him after i heard the rest of this.
No way.
Martin had every right to fight for his life.
Zimmerman had no right to decide if Martin should live or die. Zimmerman put himself in a situation for that. Makes sense, considering this man’s history.
Even the police concurred.
Also, I notice you are only responding to part of my posts…is there a reason for this?
Why not meet the police at the clubhouse? Why give them a phone number?
Or is that not relevant?
yes, that’s how it works. Unless you can prove all your theories of a screaming Zimmerman judo throwing himself UNDER Martin then it comes down to Zimmerman’s version of events and the evidence that supports or refutes it.
What we have to start with is his phone call to the police. This dominates the timeline. The phone call narrates what is going on. Zimmerman doesn’t sound like he’s waving a gun around threatening to judo throw Martin. What we hear on the phone call is someone reporting suspicious activity and setting up a meeting point.
At the time of the attack Zimmerman knows the police will arrive any minute. Martin doesn’t know this. The person least likely to do something that would get him arrested is the person who called the police in the first place. The person most likely to do something stupid is a troubled kid who doesn’t know the police are coming. That would be Martin who goes on to beat Zimmerman relentlessly.
Utter bull–“throw himself under Martin”. I never claimed such a thing.
We don’t have to start with Zimmerman’s phone call. How about surveillance video? Why did Zimmerman break his usual Sunday routine?
Interesting hypothesis you’ve posed
According to the evidence,** Martin didn’t touch his gun**. How can there be a struggle for a weapon if the other person didn’t touch it? Now, Bricker has claimed that one can touch a weapon and not lay DNA on it - I doubt this and would be interested in seeing statistics on this. Even if this was the case, the evidence should be taken at face value or another round of testing (with more sensitivity) should be employed. But to sidestep the evidence and say, “LOL! There was a struggle for a weapon but I didn’t expect his DNA to be on there!!!11oneone” borders on absurd. In case we’re keeping score, I still maintain the position that Trayvon Martin was the incarnation of Jean Grey. It’s the only possible alternative.
Given it’s the south, I don’t know what analytical techniques Florida is using but you can use PCR to amplify very, very small amounts of genetic material. Match the amplified DNA using Southern Blot, and BAM!, you got your culprit.
- Honesty
He had no right to start a fight. He had no right to pummel Zimmerman. It’s against the law.
Zimmerman had every right to defend himself.
It’s pretty evident why he asked them to meet where he was standing when he finished the call. He’s trying to direct them to the last known location of Martin. Otherwise it’s a waste of time. And he gave them a phone number because the dispatcher asked for it.
I am sorry, I missed this post.
I am glad we both agree on something.
Again, maybe there was no attack, or an attack the way Zimmerman said there was.
About your last statement, yes, that’s true, but again, you could say the same about people who are fighting people who have victimized them. They have gotten shot.
Months ago, there was a man where I live who got shot because he had the nerve to fight a man who was mugging him.
Doesn’t mean the person who did the shooting shouldn’t go to prison.
- I disagree. Zimmerman ‘started’ the fight. Again, let law enforcement go to work. Maybe he wanted to show the “lazy police” how it’s done.
Martin has every right to defend himself.
- Please listen to the call again. Zimmerman told them to call him. That’s when they asked him. If I am wrong about this, i will apologize to you, but I am certain this happened.
Please read your post again. You are basically conceding that Zimmerman was still following him. He tried saying the same thing to Serino. Serino called him out and said, “no you were following him”.
It’s like some of these posters are internalizing Zimmerman’s words and thought processes.
This same EXACT exchange happened with Zimmerman and Serino. Wow.
Sam: There was a gun struggle. Why? Zimmerman said so.
John: But there’s no DNA evidence on the gun.
Sam: You can grab a gun without leaving DNA.
See how it works Honesty?
Bull, then more bull.
You just love to make up stuff, don’t you?
Ok - please quote Zimmerman’s words that say that Martin grabbed the gun.