It's not that he'd reach the gun, though that is part of it, but it's how TM would even see the gun. If he's straddling GZ, and the gun is in the holster tucked inside GZ's pants underneath his body, how would TM even see it to know to grab for it? The only way that would happen would be if GZ got it out earlier or tried to get it out earlier. But that scenario isn't part of the evidence.
God help the poor soul if you ever end up on a jury ... guessing should never be part of the equation edit : It's also he may have felt the bulge of the gun in the struggle , didn't necessarily have to have seen it .
You change your mind because of the penalty tied to the crime? No one knows what the real scenario was that happened but it seems obvious Zimmerman has lied about the accounts. I don't know how it started but I do know that Zimmerman said Martin ran away which indicates he was afraid. People that are afraid don't run away and then run back to start a confrontation, that's just implausible. I do know that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin. By virtue of that, Zimmerman held the keys to any confrontation. He knew why he was following Martin, he knew he was armed in the event something happened, Martin didn't know anything and he was the minor here. I don't know who got physical first but by the evidence, it sounds to me like Martin got the best of him and at least was on top of him while both were on the ground. I think what realistically happened is that Martin stopped hitting him and then Zimmerman reached behind his back, grabbed his gun, and shot him. I think the whole smothering the face and reaching for the gun stuff is just a flat lie. I don't think I ever heard Zimmerman say at any point that he tried to get away or tried to run away or tried to defuse anything. He was looking for it, he found it, he killed a guy, and now he's going to face the jury.
If you are so adament about the facts of this case, the jury's ability to analyze those facts and reach an appropriate verdict then I hope you will come to the conclusion that justice was carried out if and when the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. I agree with most of the legal analysts who believe that will be the case. The state has not met its burden to get a conviction...Prosecution witnesses have been much more inconsistent then GZ's story. Rachelle Jentelle is a racist and a liar, TMs dad flip flopped on the voice he heard on the tape, dr. Bao made himself look incompetent and was a flip flopper as well. Prosecution witnesses have already stated Trayvon was on top and prosecution pretty much conceded that fact. Compare that to the vietnam vet, zimmermans mom and dr Di maio. Their testimony was much more solid. You are clinging on to whatever you have to rationalize the decision you made about GZ's guilt long ago.
No he summed up his reason in his last sentence that you ignored. His logic and opinions are perfectly valid.
This pretty much contradicts your last paragraph entirely. If his actions led to the death of someone else, and can be proven as such, then there is a penalty in order.
Oh, Mr Logic is here. Thanks Mr. Logic. He acted recklessly, foolishly, and irresponsibly. His actions were negligent and disobeyed the training he received. His actions that day led to the teens death. But does he deserve to go to jail for 20 years? There's just not enough to convict GZ.
Actually you are wrong about a lot in this post. Early on in the trial I was saying that the prosecution had not proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I also have seen legal analysts all over the place saying different things about being guilty or not guilty. Jentelle hasn't been shown to be a racist. But not one witness for the Defense has backed up GZ's story of him having his head bashed in and being hit dozens or twenty times, nor does the physical evidence back that up. Nobody in the trial nor you have been able to explain how TM saw and reached for the gun that was pinned beneath GZ while straddling GZ with his knees at GZ's armpits as GZ claimed happened. In my mind that removes reasonable doubt that it was self defense. If other people saw the evidence differently than that's fine. I understand that's possible. I'm fine with the jury coming out with a not guilty verdict, or a manslaughter verdict, or a 2nd degree murder verdict. Whatever they decide, I have no problem with their verdict. They just saw different evidence as key to the trial. I can accept that.
Oh. Well then say that. It was on Fox. Here you go: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Zimmerman neighbor on Fox says sources tell him the jury is 5-1 in favor of acquittal.</p>— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) <a href="https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/statuses/356198850618343425">July 13, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Wow. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Zimmerman&src=hash">#Zimmerman</a> friend Frank Taaffe just said on <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews">@FoxNews</a> that he has insight that jury is 5-1 in favor of acquittal. Uh, how's that Frank?</p>— Todd Schnitt (@toddschnitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/toddschnitt/statuses/356198207119826945">July 13, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
STOP. SPECULATING! You've already made this point 50x. This isn't CSI where you convict someone on speculative evidence. You can't prove your theory. Zimmerman isn't getting up there to be cross examined. Unless you can prove it absolutely, then it went down how Zimmerman said.
The funny thing is even after the trial the controversy will not cease. 1. He's found not guilt. Zimmerman supporters will hail the decision while many on the other side will say justice was not served, make a bunch of ignorant assumptions and complain. It is totally plausible that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. 2. He's found guilty. Martin supporters will hail the decision and say justice was served, while some might actual complain if he is convicted of a lesser charge ( manslaughter). The other side will complain about an abuse of the justice system and how the jurors only made the decision to avoid riots or some other nonsense. It is just as plausible that Martin did nothing wrong as well. I'll be happy with either verdict because that's the way the justice system works and frankly, the jurors know far more than any of us arguing about it on a discussion board.
+1 While plausible Zimmerman is innocent, based on the evidence, I find it unlikely Zimmerman was not in the wrong. However, I'm not going to be upset with a not guilty verdict. I will remain upset with the local PD (and legislators responsible for "stand your ground"), however, for dereliction of duty that likely severely impacted this case. This incident needed a trial from the very beginning, and at the very least, it happened, despite some very tall odds.
For the most part, I do agree. I don't think of Zimmerman as a complete scumbag. I do think he was a bit rash in his decision. I don't think he should go unpunished but I don't think he should goto jail. His concealed permit should certainly be taken away. The whole issue with this case is a person like Zimmerman could have been a complete hero in one case or a villain such as in this case. If Martin turned out to be a burglar, then Zimmerman would have been hailed as a hero for keeping tabs and making sure he didn't get away. Since Martin has been portrayed as an innocent little black boy out for a bag of skittles, Zimmerman is the villain. It doesn't matter if Martin was committing crimes or not, the same level of judgement should be case down in either case. This is why I believe Zimmerman is being railroaded.
I agree there have been those who have assume Martin was up to no good regardless. All of that doesn't matter and its silly to assume so. For a lot of us, its about the emotions and race card being played in lieu of evidence. As others have pointed out, if a person retells a scene over and over w/out some minor inconsistencies, then I will call BS. That said, none of us knows what went down except for Zimmerman. Killers get off on worse cases every day. That isn't an excuse to let him go, but there is no need to get emotional and pit divisions between everyone.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NFFz28mTFZg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
LOL, so many holes in that logic. People are jumping ship. Stand Your Ground and berate those who are brave enough to state their beliefs.
But does making the mistake of pursuing TM mean that GZ can not defend himself against an attack from TM? If GZ genuinely felt his life was threatned, I don't think it does not according to the way the manslaughter definition is written.
