Reading comprehension isn't your thing is it? You cannot prove either scenario with the evidence available.
Feel free to address what I asked above.
The point is, with zero evidence that GZ acted in an offensive nature at any time, why on earth would anyone even remotely entertain the idea that TM wasn't the one who started the physical portion of the altercation? Sure... it's "possible", but what could possibly make it plausible?
He got out of his car and ran down to the T, in the dark of night, with no sight of TM. That's it. That's your supposed "not enough evidence" as opposed to "no evidence".
Reading comprehension isn't your thing is it? You cannot prove either scenario with the evidence available.
Are you incapable of comprehending my question I proposed to you? Why can't you answer it?
ETA: In any scenario, unless there was video, or a third eyewitness to the beginning of the physical confrontation, you cannot "prove" who threw the first punch unless you take the word of one of the people involved, which in this case would be Zimmerman. The fact that GZ was the only one of the two parties with any physical indication of ever receiving a blow is fairly indicative that TM was the one who threw the first blow, since there's no indication that GZ threw any.
Lol! You realize the whole argument the defense used was that zimmerman could have been injured more than what can be seen and yet you deny that same info to Martin, who is dead which makes evidence of physical abuse that much tougher to spot (you don't bruise when you are dead).
But yes, continue with your nonsense or hypocrisy.
The defense suggested that GZ could have potentially had injuries that were not visible in those photos. Martin was autopsied. Martin had no visible injuries anywhere on his body, other than near his left hand knuckles, and that was from a direct physical examination. Zimmerman's hands were photographIed after the incident, and his hands were flawless, not a scratch, bruise, or any indication of them experiencing any sort of impact, whatsoever.
You're arguing a point based on a desire to demonize Zimmerman, absent any evidence, and paint TM as somehow the victim. Where was TM's bloody nose? Where were the lacerations on the back of TM's head? Where were the other indications of trauma on TM's body?
Jeantel testified that Martin told her he was being chased by a "creepy-a** cracker."
"This was a disaster," criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos told CNN's Anderson Cooper the day Jeantel testified. "This was the star witness, the star witness. The wheels came off and it was a train wreck. And there's no other -- there's no way to soft-pedal it."
5 reasons for the not guilty verdict = http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-why-this-verdict/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
"
Lol. You are arguing against a straw man. Reading comprehension definitely isn't your thing.
The defense suggested that GZ could have potentially had injuries that were not visible in those photos. Martin was autopsied. Martin had no visible injuries anywhere on his body, other than near his left hand knuckles, and that was from a direct physical examination. Zimmerman's hands were photographed after the incident, and his hands were flawless, not a scratch, bruise, or any indication of them experiencing any sort of impact, whatsoever.
You're arguing a point based on a desire to demonize Zimmerman, absent any evidence, and paint TM as somehow the victim. Where was TM's bloody nose? Where were the lacerations on the back of TM's head? Where were the other indications of trauma on TM's body?
5 reasons for the not guilty verdict = http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-why-this-verdict/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I also saw on TV when several black guys said they were afraid for their lives. Newsflash guys, you need to be afraid of your own kind because most of the killing of black males are done by other black males. A mind is a terrible thing to waste indeed.
And apparently arguing with facts isn't yours.
Lol. Clutching at straws is all that is. Then said straws become the basic assumption upon which so-called "logic" is based?
Sounds about right. :sneaky:
Arguing with him is an endless circle of unproductiveness.
And apparently arguing with facts isn't yours.
His whole schtick is writing posts solely critical of others while rarely if ever offering an opinion or substance of his own. He never really says anything henceforth he can never be wrong. It's an online forum loophole. Arguing with him is an endless circle of unproductiveness.
The vast majority of those that insist GZ was/is guilty seem to mirror that experience.
Zimmerman volunteered for his neighborhood watch group, but he was not on duty the night of Martin’s death. He told police he had forgotten he was wearing his gun holster – with his gun in it – that night, until he felt it during the altercation with Martin.
It s written that TM smashed the guy s head on the concrete
pavement multiple timesz , if true this would had broken more than
a nose , there would be quite bigger injuries with broken skull
in several places , unless the fighting occured on the grass ,
where they did found the body.
According to the doctors TM survived at most 20 seconds
after he was shot and it s unlikely thatr he had enough
strength left to do something else than collapsing given
the bullet shock fired at a few inches distance.