GZ had a legal right to be where he was. Nor is it clear at what point GZ knew TM was unarmed. And the "teenager" was about half a foot taller than TM. TM inflicted bodily injury on GZ. Furthermore, in a sense TM was not unarmed - concrete was his weapon.
I honestly can't believe anyone is still of the opinion that this never should have gone to trial. Newsflash; the trial is a show of the rule of law. The only reason there wasn't going to be a trial is because of gross incompetence of both branches of local law enforcement.
No person capable of logical thought would convict GZ. Only a jury with an agenda outside of the law - a jury nullification if you will - can find GZ guilty.
TM was indeed unarmed. He carried no concrete. All of the things you've said should be placed under the scrutiny of a trial. Luckily they were. It wasn't a reflection of a mob, or Obama but of the fact that there was a dead unarmed teen and armed man that admitted killing him. Whatever the jury decides, they decide on their own and because of the evidence they've seen. Not because of a mob or Obama. You have no evidence to point to any reason that the six women on the jury aren't capable of independent thought.
There was never any evidence against GZ. The locals got it right. Then the usual suspects who brought us the Duke lacrosse case and Tawana Brawley got involved. Mob rule pure and simple.
I'm certain that this poster is a relative of GZ or at the least a close acquaintance. Only someone with a bias would ignore the evidence that is right in front of them. Can you please answer why GZ got out of his car? He certainly didn't forget which street he was on.
I haven't seen a person capable of logical thought explain how TM straddled GZ with his knees at Zimmerman's armpit, and yet still someone how see and grab a gun that tucked in a holster inside the pants of Zimmerman and underneath Zimmerman's body. If that was explained, I'd have to go with acquittal. But I haven't one bit of reasonable doubt that says that could have happened as Zimmerman claims in his bid for self defense.
He is allowed, even in Obamastan, to get out of his freaking car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know the dude, nor do I like him.
There wasn't any evidence (other than, you know, a dead body, a murder weapon, and a confession, etc.) because local law enforcement didn't do their jobs. That's incompetence in action. Clearly you haven't researched what went on in the moments and hours after the shooting. That, or you're just really dumb and/or have an agenda and don't care. Seeing as how you're trying to pass off the ground as a "weapon", I'm thinking it's a little of both.
Rather play amateur CSI with some race hustler on the internet, I'll defer to the world's leading forensics expert, Dr. Maio
Have you ever been in a real fight ? Not some school yard fight but an actual struggle that your life depended on ? I have and and afterwards the entire thing was like a blur . There was no way I could have described detail for detail what happened . A fight is not a static event and you can't just say , well if such and such happened he couldn't reach a gun .There would be changes of potions constantly occurring .
Show me evidence of the ground being cited as a weapon in an assault case. Burden of proof; you has it.
Just saw an interview with GZ's neighbor and he said he has "inside info" that the jurors are currently at 5-1 in favor of acquittal. I found that interesting. I can't imagine that is legal for that info to be getting out. Of course it could be total BS as well, because the guy seemed like a nut job.
If you are referencing Taaffe (sp?), I doubt he's a nut, but he's obviously too close to the matter to provide useful analysis.
Sorry but the expert did not explain how that happened in all of his testimony and cross examination.
