Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.
In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.
Two points to respond to:
>>> Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.
That is my point as well. Now please show me the "proof" that TM threw the first punch. GZ's accusation is not proof. The witness that puts TM on top minutes later is not proof of who started the fight.
>>> In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.
Yes, but oddly enough Zimmerman himself said he scooted off the "weapon." Once he scooted off the weapon the weapon was no longer a part of the fight. It was out of reach. Further, having been in such fights I can assure you that the lighter guy on top is not the person controlling the location of the ground in which they are fighting. Thus, why GZ was able to scoot them onto then off of the concrete. Why did GZ scoot onto the concrete in the first place? Ask him, or better yet ask the investigator why he did not think to ask that question.
Fair enough; I'll address them in order.
1) First, Zimmerman's accusation is evidence. The witness's statements are evidence. Hell, DD's testimony is evidence. What a jury does is weighs the evidence to come to an outcome, which is then considered proof. Thus far, I simply feel that the evidence leads to a more logical conclusion that Mr. Martin initiated aggression. I think Zimmerman was scampering towards Martin, got too close to Martin, words were had, and Martin started working Zimmerman over. The burden is on the prosecution to show me that it didn't happen that way, which is how the evidence thus presented seems to portray.
2) I don't have a damn clue why Zimmerman did any scooting, or why investigators did or didn't ask him certain questions. What I do have a clue about is what
was actually asked of him during his interrogation(s), and I know that his head at one point was in contact with the concrete. The State's witnesses stated as much. Until they rebut that evidence, I don't have much choice but to agree with the defense's theory of the case. One final analogy on this point: if you were being attacked by a person with a knife, would you not fear for your life? What if they dropped the knife? Would you still have that fear? What if they got the knife back?
In short, I believe that Zimmerman was getting his head bashed on the ground, was getting his ass kicked, formulated a fear for his life, and felt he was going to get pummeled into unconsciousness. Thus he screamed for help, and when none came, he made the decision to defend himself with a gun. I think the force was reasonable if he felt his life was in danger. And I don't think he had to wait until he was clinically brain dead before reacting.
