|
Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/11/2013 7:44:25 PM)
|
Several people have been killed with marshmallows. You've got nothing.
Except of course the outright lies about Zimmerman being told something he was never told, the girlfriend's many contradictory and impossible claims being anything but a disaster for the prosecution, etc, etc... all debunked long ago.
The animation was quite obviously allowed by the judge in closing, another semantic falsehood already debunked.
And the logical howler that a right handed person must lead with his right is too much.
Are you going to post the 12 year old Trayvon picture now and claim that a 350 pound Zimmerman beat a little boy down, and then shot him in the back of the head, as was also debunked months ago??
If you want the real facts of the trial, scroll back a few pages, they've been spelled out more than once.
f you don't want any facts, carry on.
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
I have stated several times what I think Martins true motivation was. He saw Zimmerman reach for his cell phone and thought he was going for a weapon. That would protect him if he was on trial but it in no way negates Zimmerman's right to defend him self.
If Martin thought Zimmerman had a weapon, did Martin, like Zimmerman, have the right to defend himself?
Why are you asking me a question I already answered .
Yes, and if he were on trial I would be calling for his acquittal .
This seems to be the hard part. A cell phone is not a weapon. While Martin may well have believed there to be a weapon being pulled that does not make it so. Thus when Martin attacked him Zimmerman's right to self defense was in no way negated.
Actually, if I remember correctly, one of the defense witnesses yesterday said that a cell phone could, in fact, be a weapon. Under cross-examination the now self-employed former police officer and now self-defense expert, was shown several items…I think it was Zimmerman’s flashlight, a cell phone, and a ball point pen…and was asked if each could be a weapon, and his answer was, “Yes” to each item. He then went on to say that most any item could be used as a weapon in the right circumstances.
Then, although it wasn’t allowed, the cartoon that the defense wanted to use as “evidence” brought out yet another fact which bolsters the idea that it was Zimmerman that attacked Martin…not the other way around. “How so?” you ask? Well let me tell you…
The cartoon showed Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose with his left hand. When asked why they showed Martin using his left hand, I think it was the gentleman that created the cartoon that explained that the damage to Zimmerman’s nose was mainly on the right side of his nose. For that to have happened, Martin would have most likely hit him with his left hand. Why is that important? Because Martin was RIGHT HANDED. If he intended to do some serious damage it is only logical that he would have used his dominant hand. But he didn’t use that hand. Why? Could it be that Zimmerman had a hold of Martins right arm, thus prompting Martin to yell, “Get off! Get off!” , as per Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, and forcing Martin to swing at Zimmerman with his LEFT HAND?
It still seems WAY more likely that Zimmerman, who had shown his aggressive tendencies all through the fiasco with his “Fucking punks” and “These assholes, they always get away” comments; with his ignoring Neighborhood Watch protocols; with his ignoring the NEN operators admonition to not follow; with his abrupt “What are you doing here?“ question; and with his prescriptions for adderoll and temazepam, both of which can cause increased aggression, anxiety, and even hallucinations, is most likely to have been the one to have started the physical contact. And with Jeantel’s testimony and the defense’s own cartoon “evidence” I don’t see how there can be much question.
|
|
|
|
