TRAYVON MARTIN THREAD

[JTFAN99]

So Trayvon was missing for 3 days? If his parents had contacted the police in those 3 days wouldnt they have been informed of his passing?

 

It is very obvious that you are not following this case. This is why there has been so much outrage. Trayvon was killed on Feb.26. You have to wait 24 hrs to file a missing person report. Trayvon father filed a missing person report on Feb.27. He even called Trayvon's cell numerous times.

 

Now there are reports that the police showed up on the Feb.27 with a dead pic of Trayvon. And asked if Trayvon father to identify. But Trayvon's Cell phone was right beside him when he died. All they had to do was pick it up and go through it. That policeman 101. I found a missing cell phone a few months ago,and found the owner 5 min later, by going through the phone.

[DLine06]

and there is no proof Trayvon started the fight either. Just because Trayvon is beating Zimmerman doesn't mean Zimmerman can claim self defense.

 

IF Zimmerman started the fight, you can't claimed self defense when you start losing.

 

No one knows what happened at the start rather they just know that at one point Trayvon got on top of Zimmmerman and was beating him.

 

However if your losing the fight, and you start to try to run away and the defender doesn't allow you to run away, then the self-defense argument has now switched because the defender has become the aggressor and vice-versa. In these strange circumstances it ends up being double charges or on the defender.

[JTFAN99]

KIrt, Confronting someone and then shooting them is a crime. Now again, I am not saying Zimmerman started the fight. But in my opinion, there is more evidence that he started the fight rather than Trayvon.

 

And again, if Zimmerman approach Trayvon, is clearly disobeyed police orders. Because he was told not to do that. So if you confront someone, when told not to and start a fight, you can't plead self defense.

 

But we are going in circles. We will see how it plays out in court. We just have to agree to disagree.

[parentofredheads]

So if this is the case, why does the defense need to show up. The prosecution doesn't just give their side of the story, then ask the jury do they believe it or not. Then of the jury says NO, The defense then goes ahead with their case.

 

In this type of case the defense has a greater burden to prove, because its been establish that Zimmerman is the killer. So when the prosecution gives their side of the story, the Defense will have to give a rebuttal. If the defense says nothing, or very little, then how far can that go in proving the prosecution wrong.

 

YES, there are cases in which the burden of proof is all on the prosecution, but this is not one of them. Although I do know the prosecution burden of proof is greater than the defense.

 

By the way, if its the always up to the prosecution to prove a case, why do we have plea bargains? And honestly, don't be surprised if Zimmerman agree to plea to a lesser manslaughter charge.

You are seriously wrong on this... seriously wrong. Let me explain. But, yes, the defense has to show up... LOL! That's a given.

 

The burden is on the State, period. As the case continues, each witness that the State calls will be cross-examined by the defense, upon which they will pick it apart, cast doubt, if you will.

 

Remember it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, after the State is done, the defense then gets up, out of the presence of the jury, and makes a motion to the Judge that the State has not made its case, and to drop all charges. The Judge will then rule. Now, granted a lot of times the Judge DOES NOT say, yep, State didn't prove its case, so "your motion is granted, the case is dismissed." If the Judge denies said motion, then the defense proceeds to put on its case, of which the State cross-examines its witnesses, and picks holes in the testimony.

 

All the defense has to do is cast a doubt in the jury's mind as to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and present its own witnesses and experts, and you can betcha there will be some of those from both sides.

 

This case is going to go on a lot longer than everyone thinks... there is a ton of information that has got to be produced and exchanged. There will also be interrogatories and depositions taken, and then and only then will it be brought to trial. Not to mention, getting all the information of the above to the experts to make an "expert opinion" on the reconstruction of what actually happened or didn't happen, not to mention the pathologist, etc., etc.

 

But you're wrong, the defense doesn't have to claim anything, except to cast doubt in the juror's minds. Now, if the defense claims self-defense, that's a defense, it's not a "case" per se. The defense doesn't have to prove it was self-defense, it can only keep repeating the words, make motions, etc., etc. to cast doubt in the juror's minds.

 

Once closing argument occurs, the Judge will read the instructions to the jury, which may include self-defense and the law as it is. On the verdict sheet, there will be a guilty or not guilty of X, X and X or self-defense, yes or no.

 

If this trial, in fact, goes, it'll be one of those 3 to 6 week trials... it's going to take them forever to pick jurors, then it starts, and they're going to claim and bring up witnesses of all sorts, and they'll drag it out as long as possible... and then you can betcha the arguing amongst the attorneys and the judge regarding the jury instructions and verdict is probably going to last at least two days... then closing argument, and then it goes to the jury... where you can betcha they'll probably hold it anywhere between 2 days to a week, maybe longer.

 

If the verdict comes back not guilty, then appeals will be made... the appeal process begins, which will take a long time. After the final appeals, then Martin's parents will be pressured to file a civil suit to sue not only Zimmerman himself, but also the police department, and the Chief of Police that resigned (or whoever he was), you can betcha that... which is another 4-6 week trial.

[KirtFalcon]

KIrt, Confronting someone and then shooting them is a crime. Now again, I am not saying Zimmerman started the fight. But in my opinion, there is more evidence that he started the fight rather than Trayvon.

 

And again, if Zimmerman approach Trayvon, is clearly disobeyed police orders. Because he was told not to do that. So if you confront someone, when told not to and start a fight, you can't plead self defense.

 

But we are going in circles. We will see how it plays out in court. We just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

There is a lot more to this than confronting someone and shooting them. In his capacity as watch captain, zimmerman did nothing illegal by confronting Trayvon. You make it sound like nothing happened in between the confrontation and the shooting. We do know that Trayvon BEAT Zimmerman before the shooting. That's a very important piece of information and is key to his claiming self defense. Remember, the prosecution must prove it was not self defense, not the other way around. Also, Zimmerman broke no laws following Trayvon, even though a dispater told him not to follow Trayvon. You seem to be sure Zimmerman started the fight when there has been absolutely zero evidence Zimmerman started it, just speculation on your part. Anytime someone is on top of you slamming your head against the payvement, you certainly can plead self defense. The evidence we have seen to date STRONGLY supports Zimmerman's claim.

[DLine06]

There is a lot more to this than confronting someone and shooting them. In his capacity as watch captain, zimmerman did nothing illegal by confronting Trayvon. You make it sound like nothing happened in between the confrontation and the shooting. We do know that Trayvon BEAT Zimmerman before the shooting. That's a very important piece of information and is key to his claiming self defense. Remember, the prosecution must prove it was not self defense, not the other way around. Also, Zimmerman broke no laws following Trayvon, even though a dispater told him not to follow Trayvon. You seem to be sure Zimmerman started the fight when there has been absolutely zero evidence Zimmerman started it, just speculation on your part. Anytime someone is on top of you slamming your head against the payvement, you certainly can plead self defense. The evidence we have seen to date STRONGLY supports Zimmerman's claim.

 

While true Kirt that he did not break the law in following him, that brings a liability against him that the prosecutor will use against him saying had Zimmerman not followed Trayvon, what would most likely happen?

[DaveTV1]

Here in lies the problem. Its not up to the defense to prove who started the fight, its up to the prosecution. They have a tough task and are in a no win situation in my opinion. If Zimmerman is found not guilty of if this gets kicked out of court, they will be labeled racist just as Zimmerman and the Sanford police have.

And we'll have riots in the streets.

[DaveTV1]

While true Kirt that he did not break the law in following him, that brings a liability against him that the prosecutor will use against him saying had Zimmerman not followed Trayvon, what would most likely happen?

We do have precedence with Joe Horn and the Castle Doctrine, it wasn't his home that he was protecting, and he was never in serious danger. While the laws of Texas are somewhat different than Florida, that is one case we can look at.

[KirtFalcon]

While true Kirt that he did not break the law in following him, that brings a liability against him that the prosecutor will use against him saying had Zimmerman not followed Trayvon, what would most likely happen?

 

 

That hypothetical question is irrevelent to the case. The only thing that can be considered is what actually happened. Not if, ands, buts, or what if's.

[KirtFalcon]

We do have precedence with Joe Horn and the Castle Doctrine, it wasn't his home that he was protecting, and he was never in serious danger. While the laws of Texas are somewhat different than Florida, that is one case we can look at.

 

Having your head slammed against the pavement doesn't qualify as being in serious danger?

[JTFAN99]

Having your head slammed against the pavement doesn't qualify as being in serious danger?

 

 

not if you started the altercation.

 

You keep saying that no one knows who started the confrontation. Well isn't that the key to the entire case. If Zimmerman started the altercation, he can not claim self defense. IF Trayvon started the altercation, he can't claim self defense either, UNLESS he started fighting because he felt his life was in danger, because he was being followed by a stranger. YOU DON'T KNOW. But yet, you keep saying Zimmerman can use self defense.

 

One thing of note. You keep this claimed that Zimmerman had his head slammed against the pavement over and over. Well, I saw a fight when I was in Middle school between 2 girls. One girl gained the upper hand, and ended up on top of the other girl. She slammed her head on the pavement ONE TIME. This girl was dazed and out of it.. She suffered an concussion. She missed school for about a week after that. We saw George Zimmerman at the police station 45 min after shooting. He was walking fine. He didn't go to the hospital and get a MRI or anything like that. He didn't even have any bandages on his head.

 

I saw the back of his head. His injuries did not look like someone had head their head slammed on the pavement. In a fight, I could scratch the back of your head with my nails. And obviously his so-called injury to his head wasn't that severe, because the police didn't take any pics of it to put in their file.

 

By the way, the lead detective for Sanford Police wanted to file charges against Zimmerman.

[JTFAN99]

We do have precedence with Joe Horn and the Castle Doctrine, it wasn't his home that he was protecting, and he was never in serious danger. While the laws of Texas are somewhat different than Florida, that is one case we can look at.

 

 

Well not exactly. The guys Horn shot were actually committing a crime. Yes, it wasn't his property, but most people don't have any sympathy for killing people in the act of a crime. And the two guys he killed were illegal aliens, and they had very extensive criminal records. So Im sure in this case, even though Horn was wrong, the Jury felt no sympathy for the guys he killed.

 

Trayvon on the other hand, was a legal unarmed teen, just walking home. He was minding his own business.

 

I was watching a case on the first 48 on AE a couple of months ago. A guy stopped at a gas station on his way to visit his girlfriend at the hospital. She had just given birth to their child. At the gas station, he and his friend were confronted by some guys, who thought they were rival gang members. The guys pull out guns on them. They both run. When they ran, one of the gang members jumped in his car and took off. The guy ran and chased his car, and started shooting at the thief. He ended up killing him. Now technically he shouldn't have done that, but the police said, they were not going to press charges. Their exact quote was "NO JURY WOULD EVER CONVICT THIS GUY, SO IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME". Well this exactly like the Horn case. Its not that he didn't break the law, because he did. But the problem is that the jury, didn't feel sorry for the victims. In other words, the victims got what they deserved.

 

The jury is probably going to have more sympathy for Trayvon Martin. Which makes this case more difficult. Although Casey Anthony got off in this same area, so who knows.

[KirtFalcon]

not if you started the altercation.

 

You keep saying that no one knows who started the confrontation. Well isn't that the key to the entire case. If Zimmerman started the altercation, he can not claim self defense. IF Trayvon started the altercation, he can't claim self defense either, UNLESS he started fighting because he felt his life was in danger, because he was being followed by a stranger. YOU DON'T KNOW. But yet, you keep saying Zimmerman can use self defense.

 

One thing of note. You keep this claimed that Zimmerman had his head slammed against the pavement over and over. He was walking fine. He didn't go to the hospital and get a MRI or anything like that. He didn't even have any bandages on his head.

 

I saw the back of his head. His injuries did not look like someone had head their head slammed on the pavement. In a fight, I could scratch the back of your head with my nails. And obviously his so-called injury to his head wasn't that severe, because the police didn't take any pics of it to put in their file.

 

 

YOU.... keep implying Zimmerman started the fight. People who carry concealed weapons are always in a defensive posture. They don't start physical altercations. The very nature of concealed carry is defensive, never offensive. Also, You can't judge the extent of Zimmermans injuries by bad grainy footage of how he looked or how he was walking. I have seen people who looked fine after altercations and walked into emergency rooms and later died. So that one doesn't fly either. You seem to want to ignore the reports that he was cleaned up and treated at the site. Just because he didn't ride in a ambulance on a stretcher to the hospital doesn't mean he wasn't injured. Your theory of what is and isn't self defense is also laughable.

[OldSchool]

Zimmermann is going to walk. The prosecutor is used to trumping up the charges to get better plea bargain for her resume. I do not think Zimmermann will plea bargain and 2nd degree murder is hard to prove. She should have told them he could have got 30 years for man slaughter and it would have been easier to prove. But as I have said everyone bungled this case from the get go.

[JTFAN99]

YOU.... keep implying Zimmerman started the fight. People who carry concealed weapons are always in a defensive posture. They don't start physical altercations. The very nature of concealed carry is defensive, never offensive. Also, You can't judge the extent of Zimmermans injuries by bad grainy footage of how he looked or how he was walking. I have seen people who looked fine after altercations and walked into emergency rooms and later died. So that one doesn't fly either. You seem to want to ignore the reports that he was cleaned up and treated at the site. Just because he didn't ride in a ambulance on a stretcher to the hospital doesn't mean he wasn't injured. Your theory of what is and isn't self defense is also laughable.

 

 

Again, I have said on many post that I don't know who started the fight. I said, based on Zimmerman past, and some of the evidence in this case, I LEAN TOWARD ZIMMERMAN starting the altercation

 

And have you ever heard the term TRIGGER HAPPY. That applies to people who carry guns, who are shoot first asked questions later. You are just making a blanket statement to assume that just because someone has a gun, they are by nature defensive. Do you know how many people are in jail for being TRIGGER HAPPY? So you can throw that out.

 

Also, What do you mean you can't judge him by the video. Have you ever had a concussion before? If you have, you would know that you would need to go to the hospital. Maybe the video wasn't perfect, but you can easily see NO BLOOD on his clothes, and NO BANDAGES on his head. How do you claim you had your head slammed on the pavement, but you have no bandages. His lawyers said his wounds on his head were bad enough to need stitches. If its that bad, you would at least need a band aid. Also, his camp claims he had a broke nose. But there is no blood. If you broke your nose, there would be blood. Then you bring up, that you have seen people who look fine, then died later at hospital. True, that means they suffered some sort of internal injuries. So that is possible. BUT........ That didn't happen in this case. George Zimmerman didn't need any additional medical treatment. So you can throw that theory out the window. Just deal with the facts of the case

 

Here are the facts:

-Zimmerman calls police, and says some crazy teen is walking around the complex. He looks like he is up to no good. Zimmerman says,"They always get away"

-That crazy teen is Trayvon Martin, who is unarmed and walking home (with no history of violent assaults)

-Zimmerman is armed, and has a past history of assaults on his record. He even assaulted a police officer.

-Zimmerman has also called the police over 40 TIMES in the past to report activity in his neighborhood.

-Zimmerman admits to following Trayvon. He is then told by the police to stop.

-Trayvon and Zimmernam somehow meet, and get into an altercation

-Trayvon is shot by Zimmerman and dies.

 

These are the only facts. The other things we (you and I) suggest are just are opinion.

 

Now looking at the facts, one must determine, who more than likely started the fight.

 

IN MY OPINION, it LEANS toward Zimmerman. This is based on his past history, and the fact that he already admitted to following him. Trayvon didn't seek out Zimmerman. He was just walking home. Zimmerman saw Trayvon, and label him up to no good. HE WAS CLEARLY Wrong. So based on this, There is no reason to believe that Trayvon, would just walk up and punch Zimmerman. But again, this is just my OPINION, you are entitled to yours, even though it sounds crazy.

 

Your opinion, is that Zimmerman had minor injuries, so its automatic Self Defense. That in my opinion, is crazy. Injuries on a person don't automatically mean self defense. And What if Trayvon had injuries. I heard one of his lawyers say, that Trayvon had a Broke Nose. So what about Trayvon defense.

-

[KirtFalcon]

The eyewitness said they saw Trayvon on top. They did not say they saw him slamming his head on the concrete. Those injuries look more in line with grass injuries than cement.

 

Last time I checked, most sidewalks were made out of concrete.

 

 

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

 

 

7:36 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

 

 

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

 

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

 

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

[KirtFalcon]

Again, I have said on many post that I don't know who started the fight. I said, based on Zimmerman past, and some of the evidence in this case, I LEAN TOWARD ZIMMERMAN starting the altercation

 

And have you ever heard the term TRIGGER HAPPY. That applies to people who carry guns, who are shoot first asked questions later. You are just making a blanket statement to assume that just because someone has a gun, they are by nature defensive. Do you know how many people are in jail for being TRIGGER HAPPY? So you can throw that out.

 

Also, What do you mean you can't judge him by the video. Have you ever had a concussion before? If you have, you would know that you would need to go to the hospital. Maybe the video wasn't perfect, but you can easily see NO BLOOD on his clothes, and NO BANDAGES on his head. How do you claim you had your head slammed on the pavement, but you have no bandages. His lawyers said his wounds on his head were bad enough to need stitches. If its that bad, you would at least need a band aid. Also, his camp claims he had a broke nose. But there is no blood. If you broke your nose, there would be blood. Then you bring up, that you have seen people who look fine, then died later at hospital. True, that means they suffered some sort of internal injuries. So that is possible. BUT........ That didn't happen in this case. George Zimmerman didn't need any additional medical treatment. So you can throw that theory out the window. Just deal with the facts of the case

 

Here are the facts:

-Zimmerman calls police, and says some crazy teen is walking around the complex. He looks like he is up to no good. Zimmerman says,"They always get away"

-That crazy teen is Trayvon Martin, who is unarmed and walking home (with no history of violent assaults)

-Zimmerman is armed, and has a past history of assaults on his record. He even assaulted a police officer.

-Zimmerman has also called the police over 40 TIMES in the past to report activity in his neighborhood.

 

That's his job as a watch captain .. to find out about suspicious people

 

-Zimmerman admits to following Trayvon. He is then told by the police to stop.

-Trayvon and Zimmernam somehow meet, and get into an altercation

 

Here is where your assumption that it had to be Zimmerman's fault is flimsy, at best

 

-Trayvon is shot by Zimmerman and dies.

 

After Trayvon took a beating from Trayvon, defending himself ... that's a fact you don't seem to like

 

These are the only facts. The other things we (you and I) suggest are just are opinion.

 

 

 

Defending yourself from a beating is self defense ... 100% of the time

[JTFAN99]

Last time I checked, most sidewalks were made out of concrete.

 

 

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

 

 

7:36 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

 

 

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

 

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

 

 

http://articles.orla...-black-teenager

 

And your article, says that its Zimmerman account of the incident. That same article also says this:

"There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about."

 

That is what this case is all about. Who punched who first,and why. Zimmerman injuries are irrelevant. Because if he started the altercation, then he can't claim self defense.

 

And by the way, what do you expect Zimmerman to say. He just shot and killed someone. Is he going to say anything that wouldn't support his case, or make him look innocent.

 

I agree that there was a fight between the the two. I don't dispute that. My only question, is who started the fight. You give this article on Zimmerman account, but Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, Who was on the phone with Trayvon,minutes before his death, says something entirely different.

 

The lawyer, who took an affidavit from the girl, quotes the girl on the cellphone as saying that Trayvon was walking home from the store and had temporarily taken refuge from the rain. He then began walking again, when he tells her, according to Crump, "I think this dude is following me."

"She tells him, 'baby, be careful, just run home,' " Crump said.

 

According to the girl, Trayvon says, "I think I lost him" then moments later says, "He is right behind me again. I'm not going to run, I'm going to walk fast."

 

Crump said "she hears another voice, 'What are you doing around here?' Trayvon says, 'Why are you following me?' " At that point, according to the girl, Travyon is pushed and his voice changes.

 

"She hears the altercation, suddenly, someone just hit the phone, because that's the last she hears," Crump said. She did not hear the shooting.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-20/trayvon-martin-teen-shot-florida/53669448/1

 

 

This is two conflicting stories. So, you have to determine which one makes more sense. IN MY OPINION, giving all the FACTS in this story, and Zimmerman past behavior, I lean toward Zimmerman being the aggressor. I COULD BE WRONG. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

 

[JTFAN99]

Defending yourself from a beating is self defense ... 100% of the time

 

 

Yes, but if you started the fight, you can't use self defense to defend yourself from legal prosecution.

 

You can't go up an punch someone in the mouth, then when they respond back and kick your butt, you can't shoot them and claim self defense. In that case, Self defense is only for the person who got hit in the mouth FIRST.

 

Now if the reasone they hit you first, is because you were chasing them and threatening their life, then they could reasonably hit you first.

 

Another question I have is, if Zimmerman has a gun, why didn't he just point it at Trayvon, and tell him to stop, or he would shoot. Zimmerman is a 28 yr old, that is 200 lbs. Trayvon is 17 and 160 lbs or so.

[JTFAN99]

Last time I checked, most sidewalks were made out of concrete.

 

 

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

 

 

7:36 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

 

 

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

 

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

 

 

http://articles.orla...-black-teenager

 

 

By the way, if witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, why didn't any witness see Zimmerman shoot Trayvon. There altercation lasted 5 min at best. So why is it,they saw the fight, but didn't see the shooting. So again, another hole in Zimmerman defense.

[KirtFalcon]

Yes, but if you started the fight, you can't use self defense to defend yourself from legal prosecution.

 

You can't go up an punch someone in the mouth, then when they respond back and kick your butt, you can't shoot them and claim self defense. In that case, Self defense is only for the person who got hit in the mouth FIRST.

 

Now if the reasone they hit you first, is because you were chasing them and threatening their life, then they could reasonably hit you first.

 

Another question I have is, if Zimmerman has a gun, why didn't he just point it at Trayvon, and tell him to stop, or he would shoot. Zimmerman is a 28 yr old, that is 200 lbs. Trayvon is 17 and 160 lbs or so.

 

 

Again, there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight, just a HUGE assumption on your part. I don't know any cases where citizens with legal concealed weapons became the agressor and attacked someone. Concealed carry citizens carry guns as a last resort, not a first option like you would have us to believe. I believe, and it makes perfect sense, that Zimmerman only pulled the gun and used it as a last resort, because of the attack by Trayvon. Do you think Zimmerman would have shot him if Trayvon hadn't started beating him? The agressiveness of Trayvon is why Zimmerman had to use his gun ... as a self defensive last resort.

[KirtFalcon]

By the way, if witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, why didn't any witness see Zimmerman shoot Trayvon. There altercation lasted 5 min at best. So why is it,they saw the fight, but didn't see the shooting. So again, another hole in Zimmerman defense.

 

The shooting probably took place at pointblank range, possibly with Trayvon still on top of Zimmerman. How do you know they didn't see\hear the gun discharge? You don't, again more wild speculation on your part.

[JTFAN99]

Again, there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight, just a HUGE assumption on your part. I don't know any cases where citizens with legal concealed weapons became the agressor and attacked someone. Concealed carry citizens carry guns as a last resort, not a first option like you would have us to believe. I believe, and it makes perfect sense, that Zimmerman only pulled the gun and used it as a last resort, because of the attack by Trayvon. Do you think Zimmerman would have shot him if Trayvon hadn't started beating him? The agressiveness of Trayvon is why Zimmerman had to use his gun ... as a self defensive last resort.

 

 

Kirt, are you reading my post at all. I don't deny Trayvon was winning a fight against Zimmerman. That is not the debate (at least with me). The debate, is whether Zimmerman started the fight in the first place. IF HE DID, he can't use self defense. Thats my position.

 

Also, I never said Zimmerman started the fight. I said, I LEAN TOWARDS the opinion, that he did, based on his past, and the facts surrounding the case. I also said I could be wrong.

 

You on the other hand, act as though you are 100% sure its total self defense. Which is impossible to know, because no one saw the intial punch (which is the key to the entire case) and Trayvon Martin Girlfriend, gives an opposite account of Zimmerman story.

 

Again, I admit my view is an OPINION. YOU are stating yours as fact, Which is crazy.

 

By the way, JOE HORN was the aggressor when he shot the intruders going in his neighbor home. Now, I understand what he did, but he wasn't being robbed. His life wasn't in danger at all. He ran outside with his gun and shot the intruders. He was clearly the aggressor. So I just proved your theory wrong. Need anymore cases.

[JTFAN99]

The shooting probably took place at pointblank range, possibly with Trayvon still on top of Zimmerman. How do you know they didn't see\hear the gun discharge? You don't, again more wild speculation on your part.

 

 

The same way, you know a witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.

 

And I have a question for you, If Zimmerman shot Trayvon at pointblank range, with Trayvon on top, Would Zimmerman have blood on him?

[Stoney]

It is very obvious that you are not following this case. This is why there has been so much outrage. Trayvon was killed on Feb.26. You have to wait 24 hrs to file a missing person report. Trayvon father filed a missing person report on Feb.27. He even called Trayvon's cell numerous times.

 

Now there are reports that the police showed up on the Feb.27 with a dead pic of Trayvon. And asked if Trayvon father to identify. But Trayvon's Cell phone was right beside him when he died. All they had to do was pick it up and go through it. That policeman 101. I found a missing cell phone a few months ago,and found the owner 5 min later, by going through the phone.

 

So one report has him unidentified for 3 days? Another has it as a day. Why isnt there a consensus opinion of what happened being reported in the media? If the police went through his phone the lawyers on both sides could have a field day with it. Was the phones integrity corrupted somehow,etc etc? They did take weeks to arrest him.

 

With so much of a cloud over what actually took place between the two I dont see a jury convitcing Zimmerman. Now if this is followed up with a civil case I could see Zimmerman having to pay restitutions of some kind.