A blood test from autopsy...
Interesting... haven't heard this one till today:
Story Link
The man known as Witness #6 originally told Sanford police Zimmerman cried for help. The witness stuck to his account that he saw Martin, 17, straddling Zimmerman and pinning him to the ground before Martin was shot.
Story Link
The man known as Witness #6 originally told Sanford police Zimmerman cried for help. The witness stuck to his account that he saw Martin, 17, straddling Zimmerman and pinning him to the ground before Martin was shot.
As far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter what led up to the moment in time that tm was on top of gz beating his head into the concrete. Should gz have just laid there and allowed his head to be pounded into the concrete until he was dead? I don't think so. Once it moved beyond just a fist fight to what may well have been attempted murder, I think any one of us would've done the same. Regardless of how we got in that position.
...when you throw away the race issues, forget trying to figure out if G.Z. is white or latin, apply the reasonable and prudent person test:
1. A reasonable and prudent person (neighborhood watch even) does not hassle someone that is not committing a crime, and who is rightfully there because he is visiting his father who lives in the neighborhood.
2. A reasonable and prudent person does not ignore a dispatchers request to not follow the person, especially if LEO has been dispatched.
3. A reasonable and prudent person does not get out of the safety of his vehicle to confront a person that is much larger than he, especially knowing he has been told not to do so and LEO is on the way.
If you apply these basic facts, who is in the wrong? That is what the jury should be pondering.
1. A reasonable and prudent person (neighborhood watch even) does not hassle someone that is not committing a crime, and who is rightfully there because he is visiting his father who lives in the neighborhood.
2. A reasonable and prudent person does not ignore a dispatchers request to not follow the person, especially if LEO has been dispatched.
3. A reasonable and prudent person does not get out of the safety of his vehicle to confront a person that is much larger than he, especially knowing he has been told not to do so and LEO is on the way.
If you apply these basic facts, who is in the wrong? That is what the jury should be pondering.
The only thing the jury needs to ponder is, did Zimmerman have a good reason to fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Regardless of what stupid thing he may have done to get himself in that position. The punishment for following someone shouldn't be a violent death on the sidewalk.
Zimmerman was a "self appointed" neighborhood watch captain.
These are all known ...facts...after the incident . These things werent Known to any Prudent persons.Like was said gz was on his way back to his vech, after it was ..Suggested..he didnt need to follow the suspect, when he was attacked. NOW a prudent person would defend himself.
tm was ...Visiting... his fathers girlfriends house. He was not known to the area as if he lived there.
......Still... there arent enough facts , they come in here and there. Depending on who you believe?
Similar threads
