Zimmerman was in a place where he had every legal right to be. The only one that broke the law that night was trayvon martin when he violently attacked zimmerman.
Where should the line be drawn...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Zimmerman was in a place where he had every legal right to be. The only one that broke the law that night was trayvon martin when he violently attacked zimmerman.
No, it is a very big assumption on your part.
I don't know the name of the lead investigator so forgive my ignorance, but how do you know so much about what exactly happened to start the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin when one of the parties to that confrontation is dead?
what you just quoted was me giving my opinion on my own belief on the use of force.
As for the trayvon/zimmerman situation, the preponderance of the evidence heavily supports zimmerman's take. His case is as solid as anything before there is actual video proof.
You have no proof of this, none.
not baseless. that is a fact. we have trayvons text messages to prove it.
No, it did not, he lied or changed his story, there is no evidence Trayvon initiated the fight, no matter how hard you wish to believe it.
what do you mean I don't have proof? It's not illegal to be on a public sidewalk, it's not illegal to get out of your car. There is nothing to suggest he did anything illegal. There is no evidence to suggest that. It literally doesn't exist. I guess you could argue invisible elves dance around my room at night, but there is no evidence for that assertion. If you are going to make a claim, you need provide evidence. We have zero evidence that zimmerman did anything illegal that night.
the investigators and police all with decades of experience have said that his inconsistencies were insignificant, and that the material facts of the case he never wavered from. They also said that they would feel anyones story that didn't change a bit or add a few more details would be MORE suspicious, as liars will usually have a very specific story down pat and not deviate from it. They all said that they believed zimmerman to be truthful, and that they believed his story and the accounts that night.
I'll go way far out on a limb and suggest that we might have some evidence if Zimmerman didn't kill the only other eye witness to the conflict.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Nonsense.
It may prove Trayvon had a history of fighting but to say some texts prove he "LIKED" fighting or "ENJOYED" fighting is nothing more than you ASSuming facts not in evidence.
And claiming that a bunch of texts from others asking him to teach them how to fight is proof Trayvon liked to fight, is nothing more than speculation...my little brother is a Black Belt in karate who is ALWAYS being asked by the other students at the Dojo to teach them some of the advanced moves he knows...does that prove he LIKES or ENJOYS fighting?
there are witnesses that heard running from right (further from the t intersection) to left where the T intersection actually is. Zimmermans tiny flashlight was at the intersection which backs up the claims of himself and the witnesses that it is where they heard the fight begin. While on the phone with the police zimmerman talked about how trayvon was gone, and continued to have a conversation while on the sidewalk for another minute or 2. Had zimmerman chased after trayvon down towards trayvons house, people would have heard movement from the T down to the other end. The fight also wouldn't have been able to happen at the T-intersection.
Given that Zimmerman was at the intersection, and Trayvon was NOT seen or heard during that time, even while zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, it stands to reason that trayvon at some point either walked back to the intersection or came upon zimmerman at the intersection.
Lastly, trayvon had no injuries or bruises or anything on him other than the gunshot. If Zimmerman had initiated the violent conflict, trayvon would have something to indicate he had been hit.
but you dont.
and the police and investigators with decades of experience (who testified for the state) all said they believed zimmermans account to be truthful. They believed his accounts and found no material inconsistencies in his story.
the investigators name is very well known so for those to not know it just show me that they didn't follow the trial at all or listen to the States abysmal case. If more people actually watched the trial the outrage would be about 80% less. This was a very basic self defense case.
It's really easy to lie when there are no eye witnesses and you have zero fear of being contradicted.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Beyond a reasonable doubt... no. But the evidence certainly suggested that was the case and certainly more so than the reverse. There was little to suggest the reverse.
Not if he tried to grab him, it didn't have to be a punch and also if Trayvon thought he was going for a weapon, he had the right to defend himself, for all anyone knows Zimmerman could have already had his gun out.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Clean criminal record. Hence he is not a convict, has not been convicted.
BS and you know it.
OK, but like, where's the evidence that Martin initiated the confrontation. I mean, I beleive you are on record saying that walking to an intersection on a public roadway or sidewalk is not illegal, right? So, like, so what if Martin approached Zimmerman?
The only thing you can conclude from the fact that Trayvon had no injuries other than the gunshot wound (which, as an aside, is just a ridiculous thing to type) is that he was a better fighter than Zimmerman. I mean, maybe Zimmerman started the fight and got his ass kicked and so he shot Trayvon? Why is that outside the realm of possibility?