If Martin had reasonable fear for his life, and he killed Zimmerman, yes. That’s not what just I am saying. That’s what the law says.
Evidence so far points that way, if the prosecutor or, if it comes to that, the jury agrees that he had reasonable fear for his life. Again, that’s what the law says.
Unless your “totally in the right” is asked not in a legal sense but in some other sense. Can you clarify? Because if you’re arguing morality and not legality, you have to discuss it with someone else.
Just admit that your statement: “but one has to notice that the reporter is not telling us that the reporter confirmed that contact with the authorities, so it is hearsay so far” was wrong and say thank you for the information.
Not so far, read the report you cited first and you would see no confirmation that the witness contacted the authorities, we just have to trust that he did. And I have seen reports that the area the final confrontation took place was not lighted and it was getting dark. Not sure I would rely on what he said, **if **he said so.
Terr’s golden witness, “}ohn”, supposedly “saw it all” and yet Detective Serino didn’t believe Zimmerman’s story. How can that seeming contradiction be reconciled? Firstly, according to the linked article, the witness not only did not see it all, but there were gaps in what he did see as he moved around the interior of his house. He did not witness the initiation of the confrontation. Secondly, he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman,(administering what Zim fans describe as a savage beating… that somehow did very little damage), which could mean Martin was the aggressor or simply that he had the temerity to fight back. Hardly the prize witness that Fox sensationalized.
And then the next time I looked out the window, there’s the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other.
But the witness recalled not having been able to see clearly which man was on top because it was dark.
He didn’t see Zimmerman get up:
It was dark. I can’t say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer.
======================
So - can you show me where exactly his testimony contradicts “Zimmerman and the police”? The fact that he couldn’t see injuries on Zimmerman? Couldn’t see doesn’t equal “there were no injuries”. For that you would have to see the EMT report. When it comes out, I am sure it will satisfy your curiosity.
Simple logic, this testimony and others throws doubt on the idea that the anonymous witness saw who was on top.
It also gives evidence to the idea that Zimmerman was not wounded and it contradicts his testimony that he was wounded on the pavement, as even Bricker posted, there is the possibility that when faced with years of prison for Manslaughter, a perpetrator could apply some self inflicted wounds after the altercation to have an excuse.
As several other witnesses and the one last quoted report, it was too dark to make up who was on top, insisting that we should ignore that important item **is **reaching for the straw.
As the latest testimony shows, Zimmerman was either not wounded, or he was after the shooting took place.
Wouldn’t have been that difficult if a thorough investigation was performed immediately. Lacerations from concrete would have ragged edges and be full of dirt.
Were all the eyewitnesses standing in the same spot? At the same distance from Zimmerman/Martin?
“Didn’t see injuries” (at a distance, in the dark) doesn’t equal “there were no injuries”. Any lawyer in the courtroom would make mincemeat of that kind of logic.
You (and I) have not seen the EMT report. Or the pictures the police took of Zimmerman immediately after. What other “thorough investigation” was missed?
True, but if the wounds exist and are consistent with Zimmerman’s story, the EMT’s record and police report will reflect that. Thus, GIGO’s (admittedly rather unlikely) suggestion that any wounds were self-inflicted will be easy to prove.
And of course there is no contradiction on insisting it was too dark and the reliability of the “john” witness. None. :rolleyes:
A quick check of the testimony shows that Zimmerman approached the latest witness, if one is willing to then doubt on that because there was little light, then there is even more reason to dismiss the early testimony of the “john” one.