Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
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.
Hot Forum Topics
