none, it is entirely possible everything happened just as Zimmerman said it did. And you can't break someones nose for following you.
There are witness statements that GZ was the aggressor, there are also witnesses that possibly contradict this. It's a matter of sorting it out in trial
Not trolling. I am speaking in terms of the law. Just because you initiate a fight, doesn't mean you can't defend yourself if your life becomes in danger. The problem is you can't determine whether he had a reasonable fear for his life because there are no witnesses. I know you think it a person who starts a fight shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but they do. Instigation of the fight is not enough to warrant killing TM, but it doesn't mean he couldn't fear for his life. Again, this is why criminally negligent homicide is a perfect fit, and murder isn't. Vlaurio, the defense will claim that he exhausted his available solutions and only shot TM when he was being beaten in the ground. TM punching first is not enough to warrant killing GZ, but that's not what GZ is claiming, he is claiming he was punching his head into the concrete. This may not be absolutely confirmed by the evidence, but it doesn't contradict it either. You can't send someone to jail for murder if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crime. Murder and criminally negligent manslaughter are very different. Again, this is where Corey overplayed her hand and now she is likely to get it thrown in her face in the shape of a not guilty verdict.
There are no witnesses of the actual fight. No one has changed their story to say that they saw who started the fight, or whether or not they saw GZ or TM beating on the other. All they heard were screams (which can't be identified) and dark figures after the fight was over. Not to mention their statements have been changed, which tarnishes their credibility in court. The defense will have their way when they are put on the stand. Nonetheless, this will be a very very interesting trial and who knows the prosecutor's may still have some very damning evidence that will throw us all for a loop.
I've done it before, and I'm not going to do your work for you. If you want to discuss it you look it up and do it yourself.
I've found it and don't need to find it again. You're the one that needs to find it. Either do it or don't. I could care less.
This case is a cluster**** -- witnesses changing their stories already... good luck with that M2 charge Ms. Prosecutor.
You haven't found it, since you apparently cannot provide a link. Did you just fabricate this witness in your imagination?
I've linked it in this very thread. I don't owe to you to do it again. Either you will find it or you won't. I don't care.
I have not seen the link in this thread (despite reading it) and won't believe this evidence until you can back up your claim.
I understand your desire to annoy Texx. However, for those of us who truly want to discuss this case, would you mind pointing us to the page number at least? I don't recall any official statements that put GZ as the aggressor. In fact didn't the defense attorney grill the investigator about that very same thing and the investigator couldn't say he knew who initiated the fight.
My support for strict gun control is growing with each page of this thread. Some of y'all should not be packing heat! Especially with what you consider justification for the use of deadly force....
For you, I don't mind doing it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-final-moments_n_1366697.html You can check for more on the girl's report of what happened in the thread on several pages. The fact that Martin was on the phone with her at the time of the attack as confirmed by phone records also points to TM not being the aggressor. Someone who's going to ambush a guy usually isn't talking on the phone the whole time.
nothing there proves GZ was the aggressor. I didn't think you actually could back up your claim, and you could not.
