As stated in my first scentence of my second paragraph I pulled it from my ass. That being said how does Martin being on top change anything? I said Martin was the aggressor, certainly in my scenario it allows Martin to be on top.
I like it. You get to say what you wish happened and if questioned you can always fall back on saying you pulled it from your ass.
So why was that brought up? On the audio tape Zimmerman says Martin is next to his car and was coming at him?
I'll repeat my original statement:
The verdict was correct. There wasn't enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.
What I won't stand for are the people interpreting the verdict to mean that Martin was guilty of assault. There is simply not enough evidence to support that.
You can speculate all you want and make assumptions but as we saw with the prosecutions case that's not good enough to convict someone.
So pardon me if I believe in applying the law and due justice equally, apparently thats something you guys don't believe in.
But please continue your hypocrisy circle jerk.
While true, I was only responding to those making such statements of fact on this forum.
If I had to guess what really happened (and this is from my ass), I'd say Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin. Martin got upset and confrontational and Zimmerman tried pulling his "forgotten" gun on Martin to keep him at bay but was unable to. Martin, seeing this did what he felt was his only option and started attacking the MMA experienced Zimmerman and got a few punches in before zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot Martin.
So I've been lightly following the case and the thing that confuses me is:
Is the main unknown "who started the physical part of the altercation"? And the guilty party of this would be the one to blame?
Let's take the whole race thing off the table. I'll put myself in the shoes of the guy walking in a neighborhood and I think of what I would do.
Some guy thinks I look fishy and confronts me. My attitude would be defensive but I would curtly explain myself and then continue on my way. If they guy tries to detain me or touch me, then he is the aggressor and an altercation may occur where I would "defend myself", which essentially means that we would start scrapping. I start winning (controlling position) and then the guy pulls out a gun a shoots me. I die. Does he get away with it since I was winning the fight and he was "defending himself" even though I was defending myself to begin with?
The second scenario is that some guy is following me. I either:
1) Hide in the bushes and jump out and tackle the guy and start scrapping with the same outcome.
2) Step up to the guy and throw the first punch.
I think in both these examples I would be guilty because I was the aggressor right?
So back to the original question:
Is the main unknown "who started it"? Or "Who was winning when the gun was drawn"?
Imagine that one of the butthurt brothers finally admitting all they can do is talk out their ass when it comes to this case.
How is that language helpful or productive?
I think in this case it's a question of who took the first aggressive action.... and in fact the evidence suggests the ONLY aggressive action GZ took was the single pistol shot. The rest of the "scrap" was all Trayvon with GZ screaming for help.
It's as helpful as those who are talking out of their ass. Or continuing to pass off the false narrative that was debunked during the trial like you did in the post above yours.
So I've been lightly following the case and the thing that confuses me is:
Is the main unknown "who started the physical part of the altercation"? And the guilty party of this would be the one to blame?
Let's take the whole race thing off the table. I'll put myself in the shoes of the guy walking in a neighborhood and I think of what I would do.
Some guy thinks I look fishy and confronts me. My attitude would be defensive but I would curtly explain myself and then continue on my way. If they guy tries to detain me or touch me, then he is the aggressor and an altercation may occur where I would "defend myself", which essentially means that we would start scrapping. I start winning (controlling position) and then the guy pulls out a gun a shoots me. I die. Does he get away with it since I was winning the fight and he was "defending himself" even though I was defending myself to begin with?
The second scenario is that some guy is following me. I either:
1) Hide in the bushes and jump out and tackle the guy and start scrapping with the same outcome.
2) Step up to the guy and throw the first punch.
I think in both these examples I would be guilty because I was the aggressor right?
So back to the original question:
Is the main unknown "who started it"? Or "Who was winning when the gun was drawn"?
No one knows first seconds of TM GZ... In the end the law of self-defense is about reasonableness. If a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of serious bodily harm, or death and uses force to meet that threat, the law justifies force and up to deadly force. If a DA or Jury agrees with that based on facts he's let go. So like you could start a fight with me by slapping me but if I ended it and proceeded to curb stomp you while defenseless you could shoot me justified.
Evidence of this case was TM was GnP GZ and thus he was justified in meeting him with deadly force.
But no jury would conclude if a old lady slapped you you'd be justified in killing her.
The whole time you seemed totally unaware of the specifics of the events that happened. It doesn't matter if Martin circled Zimmerman's car or not. Martin confronted Zimmerman regardless.
There's more evidence towards Martin causing the first assault which helped the jury come to the decision that it was self defense. Once they agreed it was self defense due to Martin most likely assaulting Zimmerman first, they determined Zimmerman not guilty.
Certainly is from your ass considering in the audio Zimmerman didn't know the location of Martin to confront him.
Imagine that one of the butthurt brothers finally admitting all they can do is talk out their ass when it comes to this case.
The law used to be that you had to make every attempt to escape or to stop the attack. Good thing the states promote violent endings instead.
Wasn't that all part of the unknown?
We don't know who started it. Both sides point at each other. Nobody witnessed that beginning. (At least from what I read).
As for the screaming wasn't that the same thing, that nobody knew whose voice it was...FBI guy didn't know and both parents thought that it was their own son?
Again I only read a few articles...didn't follow it 100%
Wasn't that all part of the unknown?
We don't know who started it. Both sides point at each other. Nobody witnessed that beginning. (At least from what I read).
As for the screaming wasn't that the same thing, that nobody knew whose voice it was...FBI guy didn't know and both parents thought that it was their own son?
Again I only read a few articles...didn't follow it 100%
im with you.
have you gone a single post in this thread without saying "de-assimilated"?
Pretty sure even under the "old" law GZ would have been acquitted. What else could he do whilst being straddled to escape or retreat?