Zimmerman is auctioning the gun used to kill Saint Trayvon artin

Why should have Martin gone into his house?? He had every right to be there. Hearing your convuluted stuff is exactly like listening to Z himself. There were 4 that said they saw them outside...2 said the saw Z on top & 2 said they saw Martin on top. Actually, they all could have been right at the time. To believe you, anyone would have to buy that M attacked with a sucker punch & while he was dominating & straddling him him on top beating Z's head into the sidewalk, somehow Z got to his gun down by his waist, pulled it out & pulled off a center shot to the chest with Martin's hands completely free. Surely, you're not that dense or lacking in any common sense at all. Or are you?. 

Study the forensics dude!

You clearly don't have a solid understanding of how investigations work.

If Zimmerman makes a plausible claim and there is neither evidence or testimony that disproves the claim, the claim will be accepted.

Surely there were no witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's timeline of events before the confrontation. But there is also no testimony or evidence that refutes it either. Zimmermans timeline was indeed plausible based on phone records of his girlfriend and logic.

The gunshot was made while Zimmerman was on his back and T was straddling him and leaning slightly forward. Just as what Zimmerman had told investigators.

Zimmerman also told investigators that after the shot he flipped T over on his belly and held his arms out to the side in an effort to restrain him until help arrived. This is likely what the witnesses saw that lived a few houses down that made them tell investigators that Z was on Top of T.

Trust me. My common sense is on point. You're the one who needs work.

Watching you beclown yourself in this thread has been pure enjoyment. 

The trial outcome was dictated by the statute. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Zimmerman did prevail at trial and likely should have. Florida's stand your ground statute had two things that worked in Zimmerman's favor...1) the initial actions of the aggressor who later claims self-defense does not preclude using self-defense. Other states are more rigid and require the person to claim to have initial 'clean hands.' 2) The evidence was indisputable that at some point, Zimmerman was injured by Martin, thus he had a prima facie claim for self defense. 

Once you have claimed self-defense, the State has the burden to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Tough to do in this case. 

Don't, however, confuse that with your second statement that the claim is accepted. When OJ was referenced in this thread, it was a legit comparison. OJs factual guilt was likely absolute. His legal guilt was not. It does not mean we don't know what happened, rather it is just the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer. 

The burden shifted here and the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's self-defense claim was improper. It does mean your analysis of that happened is the gospel despite your ridiculous assertions. 

Nature actually stated what I said for the last three years...the stand your ground law would actually have allowed Martin to make the same claim. Had Zimmerman pulled the gun on him and if Martin was wrestling the gun away and shot Zimmerman, he similarly, could have made the same claim. Actually, had Zimmerman simply told Martin to stop and if Martin felt threatened and punched Zimmerman, and in return, if Zimmerman pulled the gun, Martin could still have claimed self-defense. 

I doubt if someone buying the gun would use it to shoot someone else.  You have to understand the pussified and confused mindset  of the emotional Zimmerman nut.  I think it is pretty well displayed on this thread  

Whoa there big boy, slow down turbo.

When I made that statement about a claim being accepted, you took it macro when I was referring micro.

As if Zimmerman made a claim that he was at a certain place at a certain time and there was no evidence or testimony that refutes that claim then it will have to be accepted and put before the jury to decide if they think it's believeable or not.

What other specific things did I get wrong? 

Zimmerman never had to use the SYG defense anyway and yes I also agree that T could have claimed self defense if there was any attempt by Z to severely injur him. Which obviously never happened because of the sucker punch and lack of any evidence that Z laid an offensive finger on him.

So other than this, yet again failed attempt to pin me to a false claim, how else have I beclowned myself?

Oh, and just to be fair and balanced, What do you think I got right? IPC

First of all, Zimmerman made no claim at trail. He did not testify. 

The biggest misnomer of the case was that Stand Your Ground played no part. Zimmerman did not request a preliminary hearing on the matter, which is allowed by the Stand Your  Ground, a smart move because it actually places the burden of proof on the Defendant at that hearing. 

But here was the Judge's trial instructions on self-defense:

Ahh, you are correct Zimmerman did indeed not testify in the trial. However, the following video was presented to the jury. Of which I base much of my theories on besides the other testimony and common sense.

I wouldn't know. Maybe you can tell ma that and what its like to run around with chin butt.

DL36 quit being a poosie and tell us if you think about the Zimmerman case.

No more of your poosie game of making 12 posts in a thresd without picking a side.

The make believe comment wasn't directed at you.  But I guess it works for you too lol