You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.
There are no injuries to Zimmerman's hands, just the back of his head. If, as you keep insisting is possible because there is no evidence to counter it, Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head. If you actually think that is stupid, why do you keep saying it?
Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
The fact remains is the only description of the happened it from the man charged with Murder 2 (which is still an overreach IMHO).
I'm not arguing that the alternate scenario is true, only that it is a scenario that fits with the known facts not based on Zimmerman's self serving story.
Could it have happened? Yes. Would the State have to prove it? Yes. Can they prove it? Probably not.
What alternative explanation do you have? Here are the facts we know.
- Zimmerman had a gun.
- There was an altercation.
- All of Zimmerman's injuries are on the back of his head.
What possible reason would a man with a gun have to start a fight and leave his gun in his holster. You are saying Zimmerman's explanation doesn't make sense, but what possible scenario has a man with a gun loosing a fight he intentionally and with malice aforethought starts.
Zimmerman was told by the Sanford Police Department in NW training materials NOT to physically inject themselves into situations.
And? Does that mean that if, as an example, a watch volunteer reports someone breaking into his home he has to run away? If not, why keep bringing it up? Is it because you have no clue how to actually debate the actually situation Zimmerman found himself in, so you have to inject random facts in order to look semi intelligent?
It's possible Martin attacked Zimmerman, true - never said it wasn't.
On the other hand it's possible Zimmerman grabbed and attempted to detain Martin if he tried to leave the situation for a second time (first being leaving the truck area) and that Martin responding the the assault and unlawful detention actions of Zimmerman. Martin may have fought back, which under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, he would be fully justified in doing.
Right now there is no evidence to support either version, but under burden of proof and presumption of innocence, Zimmerman would still be found not guilty.
Sure, it is possible a man with a gun elected to grab a kid a decade younger than him rather than use the weapon to detain him. It is also possible the moon is made of green cheese. Seriously, do you really want to assert that scenario?
Exactly what I've been saying. Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.
However lack of evidence does not support a guilty verdict, it only supports a non guilty verdict.
That doesn't even make sense.
You are the one trying to argue you have an open mind, yet you keep insisting that, because we don't know what happened in a minute or so you think is critical, that we cannot reach a valid conclusion. If we actually have to come down on the not guilty side without clear evidence, we actually have enough evidence to reach a valid conclusion.
So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?
>>>>
Only idiots think that, which proves you are an idiot.
The fact of the matter is that Stand your Ground actually requires you to back off once you are out of danger. Florida is not California, so his right to self defense ended when Martin was out of the fight. The moment Zimmerman was on the ground Martin had no reasonable fear for his life, and he should have walked away.
