Unfortunately for those of you whom are against a person defending themselves against an attack if the attacker is black, the verdict was not guilty....That you can't accept that, it's just too damned bad....We are a society of innocent until proven guilty, and all the speculation you wish to apply doesn't matter, what matters are the facts, and the prosecution had a piss poor case from the start.
Thank you, Quazi!
on cinco de mayo, 2001, i punched my brother in law.. just a single solitary punch, with a lot of pent up anger behind it. ( he's 6' 225, i'm 6'4" 250)
he didn't bleed, i didn't cut him..in fact, he showed very little outward injury.
within seconds, he had pissed himself, started foaming at the mouth, and went into convulsions.. a few minutes later, he stopped breathing.
by the time his breathing stopped, my anger had passed, so I started CPR while the wife called the ambulance.
7 months later, he was released from the hospital.
that single punched caused massive damage to his brain housing group.
don't tell me that punches merely "hurt".. I know better.
had I not stuck around to watch, in satisfaction, him flopping around and foaming... he'd be dead... and I would be in prison for murder.( rightfully so)
he's stuck with not remembering anything about an entire year.. he doesn't remember me punching him, he doesn't remember the hospital stay, the multiple operations, the therapy... he remembers nothing.
he was an asshole of the highest order, and i took a year from his life and gave him a lifelong medical problem... and I did so illegally ( for which I plead guilty and have paid a price)
there are plenty of fatal fistfights... lots, in fact... it's an absurd notion to say there aren't, utterly absurd.
when you lie about something so obviously true...it makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously
Because the "evidence," as you say, is exceedingly weak. That is, said "evidence" could never be used in a prosecutorial fashion. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the alleged fault of Zimmerman.
That's fine. That's normal defense procedure. But it does not cast Martin as the assailant. We're talking about one witness...who was the defendant!--and then another witness who had zero idea how the two men got into the position they were in.
We just don't know. Zimmerman's story could be true...and that's all the defense needed.
There's been a lot of talk about assumptions on the part of Martin's supporters; what's amazing is the same people who point out that we don't know if those assumptions are true are the ones who assume everything against the dead person.
Based on...effectively nothing.
Rooting for one's "team" is antithetical to truth in matters like this.
...for perhaps the most admirable among the admirable laws of Nature is the survival of the weakest.