Without seeing the evidence I don't think any of that is clear. The evidence I've seen doesn't make it clear who started the physical altercation. But I have no doubt that both sides will have evidence and a case to make.
Was Zimmerman a creep? Most likely. Was Martin a thug? Most likely. Unless any tragic evidence comes out that hasn't been seen, everything that I have seen says this looks like a self defense case. Would the media love to make this about race? You betcha.
Definitely a self-defense case. A minor being chased and accosted in the dark by a grown man with a gun. That kid had every right to fear for his safety and defend himself from anyone pursuing him in his vehicle and then on foot. Glad you agree. It might not have been affected by race except for Zimmerman's own history and how the police handled it. Blood and alcohol tests for the victim but not the killer? Reaaaaally? Blame the media!
change your glasses there is no clear case here but it does lean Martin's side just walking home and getting killed by a so called neighborhood watch captain with a gun .
Exactly. It is mystifying how so many here can just overlook the fact that Trayvon was essentially being stalked by Zimmerman. If Zimmerman gets a walk, it will set a precedent that you can take your gun, go looking for a fight and when you get one you can just kill the guy and it is ok. That would be a poor result.
In defense of his defense, at least he's got the style and attitude of someone who knows what he's talking about.
This habit of calling for links for widely known facts is a novel and amusing form of trolling. I'm sure you're earning lots of EXP and will soon level up. I wonder what you will evolve into.
Not going to argue the morals because I'm a curmudgeon who probably would hate both of these guys and not care about their lives much at all. I am super curious about the legal arguments though. And if this really was legal self defense, then if Martin also had a gun and shot Zimmerman first would that be legal self defense? I think there's a lot of legal grays here. And if Zimmerman gets a walk, then I'm surely arming myself in strange neighborhoods and firing first if anyone is eerily stalking me. I just hope it's not someone trying to return my dropped wallet or something.
If you shoot first at someone then this case would have no implication for you as that is not what happened here. The groundbreaking legal precedence that would be set by a not guilty verdict would be that self defense now includes shooting someone who is attacking you even if they have skittles.
So when Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his truck and then was blind sided by Trayvon and being beaten in the face you are saying Trayvon had every right to? Zimmerman was the only one with wounds caused by assault. That caused Zimmerman to cry out for help which can be heard on the 911 tapes. He feels his life is threatened and shoots in defense. All of the evidence so far points out a slam dunk self defense case. No way they get murder 2 and the best the defense could possibly ever hope for is man slaughter which they will not get because there is no way Zimmerman pleads down.
Yes, its a fact, but like most other facts in this thread, most are based on assumptions. What is factual and correct is that nobody knows what exactly happened leading up to the few moments of the shooting, except for Zimmerman himself. We don't know whether Zimmerman was stalking or being a concerned neighbor. We don't know who started the verbal and physical altercation. We don't know how much danger Zimmerman was really in. Any of these questions can change the dynamics of the case. What we do know is they are both punks and have questionable judgement. To assume otherwise is just foolish
Unless you kill the only witness. Then this case would be the perfect example because your story would be the only one that mattered.
