Yes, naturally the courts don’t let one conjure helpful testimony into the mouth of the deceased. And Zimmerman’s testimony is, legally, evidence. But where its not corroborated by other witnesses or the physical evidence I see no reason to give it any weight whatsoever.
Unless I’ve missed something the only evidence of who started the fight is Zimmerman’s testimony and so I understand the frustration in the pro-Martin camp at some people treating Zimmerman’s unsupported word as gospel just because Martin can’t give his side of the story. And acting as if Zimmerman’s (IMO legally correct) acquittal is some type of governmental endorsement of his story.
There is evidence that Trayvon did not follow the law, but only evidence. Is it evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Hmmmm… Nobody has examined that question that I know of.
The moment you move from “There’s insufficient evidence Zimmerman committed a crime,” to “This proves Martin committed a crime,” you shift the burden. Now it’s Martin that’s entitled to the reasonable doubt burden in his favor.
Now, there is a legally sufficient case to be made that Martin committed aggravated battery. But no jury has weighed that claim or spoken to it… and merely being “legally sufficient” does not in any way mean it’s convincing.
How would one provide evidence that an earlier assault (pulling a gun and aiming it at Trayvon) occurred prior to the punch and tackle? Given a lack of conclusively solid eyewitnesses other than Zimmerman himself. Such an assault would not leave physical markings.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but I would respond by saying that it depends on what you mean by “became physical.” Force used must be proportional to the threat. If Z grabbed him, shoved him, or even slapped him, then Martin can respond in kind. However, he can’t respond to non-deadly force with deadly force (and bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk is deadly force).
So, unless you have evidence that Z committed far more than even a simple battery on Martin, then Martin’s response was disproportionate and put Z in reasonable fear of serious injury or death.
There is no evidence that TM used deadly force on GZ.
The only pieces of evidence of deadly force in this case is the gun and the gunshot wound in a young man’s chest. A bloody nose and some scratches don’t belong in the same universe, sorry.
No it doesn’t. It just means Trayvon manage to harm Zimmerman more before Zimmerman killed him.
The evidence is that Zimmerman was acting irrationally and chasing a teenager because Zimmerman thought the unknown teenager was a criminal, even though Martin had done nothing wrong or acted in a suspicious way at all. There is no credible evidence that Martin was acting irrationally. There is absolute evidence that Zimmerman was acting irrationally.
Now here we begin to agree. There was no physical or eyewitness testimony about which one started the fight. However you assume that Martin did despite the evidence that Zimmerman was irrational, feared Trayvon Martin as soon as he saw him, and in the end killed him without a reasonable basis.
Now why given the lack of evidence about who actually assaulted who do you assume it was Trayvon Martin assaulting George Zimmerman. There is no evidence or even rational basis to believe that.
Where is your case where a teenager assaulted a strange man who was following him for no apparent reason? This is the key, because it shows that Zimmerman is not credible, and his story is not to be believed.
BTW: If you’re interested, I don’t see how a jury could convict Zimmerman based on the prosecution’s evidence. I think the prosecution did a better job of defending Zimmerman than his own attorneys did.
The six jurors, unanimously, after hearing the evidence presented over weeks of the trial, found that he killed him with reasonable basis.
Yes, because of reasonable basis for the killing. Now can you explain what evidence you think prosecution missed that would remove that “reasonable basis” from jury’s minds?
There is no reasonable basis for the killing. Teenage boys don’t attack strangers they think are following them. And the only person who says that one did is George Zimmerman, who decided for no rational reason that Trayvon Martin was a criminal just before he killed him.
The jury thought there was. All six of them. Unanimously. In your post you seem to agree with their decision, based on the evidence presented to them. So - what evidence do you think the prosecution missed that would remove that “reasonable basis” from jury’s decision?
One would point out that, if Zimmerman had his gun aimed at Martin before Martin attacked him, one would expect that Martin would have been shot a lot sooner - that Zimmerman would probably not wait until after Martin pounded his head against the pavement several times.
Suppose you were to learn that Zimmerman approached Martin and said to him, “Hey, what are you doing here? You don’t belong here – this isn’t your neighborhood, and we don’t like criminal thugs like you around here. Fucking punk! Go back to whatever crime-hole you climbed out of!”
Would that, in your mind, make Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman at least plausible?