This is all based on crap. None of us can prove how it happened, so I'm glad GZ defenders have all moved on from "we'll wait until it shows up in court and is concluded", to "WELL, here's my gossip interpretation.". With that said, GZ had a gun, TM didn't. That is very f**king relevant and based on solid fact rather than "he said, and well, the other he is dead".
Go smoke a fatty and then come back with a better defense for buying in to the skittles and ice tea and or hoodie diversion tactics aimed at shallow thinking people. You and others got manipulated by the media. Sucks for you and for others arguing on behalf of TM yet smart enough to leave out those defenses. You just haven't figured that out people like you who buy in to the silly diversion tactics aren't helping the TM supporters.
Yeah, the fact that GZ had a weapon and TM didn't is a "diversion". It's the difference between reasonable self-defense and murder.
Evidence indicates TM was beating GZ senseless, thereby forcing GZ to shoot TM before TM could kill him. Acquittal foreseen.
See these kinds of arguments may work for people on a message board, but they hold no merit in court. GZ's intent was not to harm the boy, he called for police, he claims he was trying to either keep an eye on him for police, or he was getting the address. There has been so much media speculation that is almost impossible to know what is being reported as fact or fiction. Hell I read multiple articles via cnn that reported facts differently in seperate articles. You may feel deep down that GZ is a liar, a racist, a whatever, but you can not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. You can not prove that GZ purposefulyl and maliciously attacked TM. Many of you see those who support GZ as callous and insensitive, but in reality we're just protecting our judicial system. You have no concrete evidence that links GZ to a murder charge. Had the DA charged him with something more easily proved, and appropriate, we would likely not be having this conversation.
North, guns aren't the only weapons that kill each other. I saw a guy get knocked out right next to me, literally right next to me at a Taco C. His head hit the concrete and he went into violent convulsions. A fist may not have the BANG of a gun, but when it forces your head into concrete, it becomes almost, if not equally, as dangerous. GZ did have significant bruising and lacerations on his head, there is evidence to prove most of what GZ claims. The stuff he CAN'T backup with evidence, can't be REFUTED by evidence either. Not too easy to convict someone with that kind of evidence, especially if they're not black.
I like the straight-shooting, at the very least. Let's wait for the results. With that said, this thread has been filled with people who are trying to trivialize one of the very few solid pieces of evidence---without regard for the fantasies they display with much more circumstantial things, in order to justify their slanted world view where it is alright to murder people.
Beating him senseless... as shown by a bloody nose and a small cut on the back of his head. While I agree the shooting of Martin appears senseless, your interpretation of the evidence sure suggests a bias to the defense...
Definetely more than a small cut. There were multiple lacerations. Not sure if it quite equates to his head being smashed into the concrete, but it certainly wasn't something you just put a bandaid on and forget about. I would think a forensic expert would be available to comment on his injuries?
As I recall, he declined/refused treatment that night, which makes the question of the seriousness of his injuries up to question. Which would seem to be evidence to be discussed in the trial.
Your assertion is different, yet also still irrelevant, than the diversionary tactics I mentioned. BTW...None of the witnesses reported seeing GZ threaten TM with the gun. In your world, anyone who uses their weapon and kills someone is guilty of murder.
How is it irrelevant that one party has a weapon and the other doesn't when the defense is trying to claim self-defense? They bloody well can't get away from the fact that there is a corpse on the man's hands. Some of you guys are edging close to pulling some crystal meth s**t and claiming TM "was a weapon" based on fictional scenarios collaborated very poorly by the actual evidence, whereas this attempt to disparage a very simple fact that can be 100% proved and is central to the case---is amusing when one considers the first part of this sentence.
I heard the same thing intially, but then there were reports of the paramedics still treating him. I hate to make it sound like I am just making excuses for GZ, but it IS possible that after ordeal he wasn't concerned with his own health since he just shot an unarmed kid. Remember he called the police before following TM, and after he shot and killed TM multiple witnesses report seeing him immediately yell for help saying he just shot the kid, call 911, I did it out of self defense. I am sure it will be hammered out in court, but it's not a case-breaker, I don't think. The more intersting bit of "evidence" is his personal doctor reporting he had a broken nose and black eyes. It certainly would be strange if he received no attention for paramedics, but had all of these injuries discovered the next day. I am fairly certain they still did a checkup on him. Do they draw blood to do a toxicology report in civilian cases? I know they do it for police officers, so if they were drawing blood I would bet they were noting his injuries in their report as well.
If someone attacks you and beats the crap out of you. Then that person sees the weapon you have on you, says you are going to die, attempts to grab the gun and you beat him to it. You are well within your rights as an act of self defense to shoot them.
Granville, nice to know you were there and saw it all happen. You should step up as a witness. I heard that the one other than the defendant is dead.
Beating him senseless, GZ was FORCED to shoot him. Your bias is showing brah, go ahead and tuck that back in.
Because he never claimed TM had a gun. You can still get your ass beaten to an inch of your life without a gun. That's why it is irrelevant, when you get into a violent altercation and you begin to slam someone's head into concrete, you are using your fists as a weapon. And these "fictional scenarios" are in fact corroborated by physical evidence for the most part. You just don't want to believe GZ because you already consider him guilty. It's irrelevant because it is not central to the case. The defense never claimed TM had a physical weapon, there is no evidence to suggest GZ pulled the gun out prior to the incident. So when the altercation began TM and GZ both had no idea if the other was armed or not. GZ claims the gun was brought out in self-defense. The law says you can defend yourself if you are in reasonable fear for your life. I would say GZ claims are somewhat reasonable. That's the part the jury has to decide on really. Because the fact is GZ had a legal right to carry that gun. He had a legal right to defend himself with that gun. And following someone, while isn't intelligent, it isn't illegal. Criminally negligent homicide anyone?
Says the guy who thinks GZ saw a 12 year old version of TM carrying skittles and iced tea and that was reason enough to bust a cap in him. I heard that common sense thinking was dead concept for you.
