|
Powergamz1 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/17/2013 8:43:34 AM)
|
The believability issue is the nasty part about the whole thing.
Trayvon Martin could not testify as to what happened, so his version of the story had to be told by others.
And unfortunately, their narratives were full of even more holes than Zimmerman's.
Martin's mother claimed that he had made it all the way to the doorstep of the residence, in one statement... that makes him look like the aggressor if a few minutes later, he was fighting around the corner, instead of simply going in the house and locking the door. Then she canged that sstory, which doesn't look good in court.
Martin's girlfriend said she heard the gunshots on the telephone, even though the time line made that impossible... and then changed her story more than once, lessening her credibility as to the 'get off me' assertion.
The coroner changed his story about the possibility of Martin moving after being shot, and bout the tox screen
The neighbor who was sure that the 'man in the red and black patterned shirt was on top of the little boy', is also sure she heard 3 distinct shots. Pop!, Pop!, Pop!. After it came out to be impossible, she too altered her testimony.
This kind of inconsistency could look bad to some jurors.
On the other hand, as more and more reliable witnesses testified as to verifiable facts, Zimmerman's overall version got more and more support. It was proven that he never said the N word on the phone call. It was proven that he did indeed have some injuries consistent with his story of being punched. The neighbor who said that Martin was on top had no holes in his story.
That kind of consistency could look persuasive to some juries.
Martin had no choice as to who was going to speak for him after his death, and he had no control over how well they would do so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BBBTBW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kana
1-We don't know that Z "took the matter into his own hands."All available evidence suggests that he was attacked. To suggest that Z acted in a vigilante fashion is to manufacture false facts.
2-Last I checked, as far as I know, in America there are lots of ways to respond to someone following you,none of which involve assault (or, to placate the whackos and hairsplitters, A&B). You can go home (The easiest and best solution), call the cops (What most citizens would do), try to lose the pursuer, or just go about your damn business (Cuz, you know, it's a public area-Z has as much right to be there as M.And vice versa).
The one thing you don't do is assault the person.The second you do that you've shifted from possible victim to, depending on the nature of the attack, felon.
Here's what I wonder?
Had Martin had been a white kid, would people be howling about how Z's civil liberties were being trampled, a poor latin trying to do the right thing, crushed underneath the jackboot of an overzealous prosecution?
I wonder...
1. We only have Mr. Zimmerman's account of his initial encounter with Mr. Martin which makes it one-sided and biased.
2. Mr. Zimmerman instigated this encounter by not complying with what he was asked to do by the 911 operator. Had he complied, this whole incident would never have happened. There is evidence to prove that.
3. The fact that he followed Mr. Martin regardless of the instructions he was given makes him a vigilante. Why is it so hard to consider that Mr. Martin might have felt threatened? Who is to say that Mr. Zimmerman didn't come at Mr. Martin first? There are too many holes and lies in Mr. Zimmerman's account of things to make believable on any level.
|
|
|
|
