Are you suggesting he provide physical evidence?
Nope, I'm saying that some on these boards consider Zimmerman's word as gospel as to who started the initial altercation, I'm simply pointing out that there is no independent evidence other that Zimmerman's side of the story as to who actually started the fight.
That's it.
Are you suggesting that he most prove his innocence?
Nope, it was the prosecutions responsibility to prove his guilt. They didn't do it.
Or are you merely making conjecture that you think he lied?
Because your opinion is irrelevant. There is enough evidence to give credence to his account, and there is not enough evidence to cast doubt on his account.
There is no independent evidence that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman. No physical evidence and no witness evidence to confirm or refute Zimmerman's story.
Some say it is "fact" that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, there is no corroborating evidence to definitively say what happened in those few seconds between Martin's phone call ending and when John came on the scene.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. The EMT's said it was possible, his doctor the next day when he was getting a return to work not said it was possible. But Zimmerman refused treatment and x-rays to confirm.
There IS physical evidence. You are 100% wrong. All evidence can cooperate his story. There is NO evidence that undermines his story.
There is NO, ZERO, NADA, ZIP indepentent evidence that corroborates that Martin attacked Zimmerman in those few seconds between when the phone call ended and before the first eye witness ("John") came out his back door.
Evidence of Zimmerman loosing the fight is not evidence that Martin started the fight.
Right now your only 2 arguments are: did he twisted the story to suit facts? Or that there is physical evidence in existence that is not accounted for in his story?
You may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Zimmerman lied about Martin attacking him, I'm not saying he's telling the truth.
What I've said is that there is no evidence (other than Zimmerman's story) about what happened in those seconds after the phone call and before John came on scene. He could be telling the truth, he could be lying, we don't know.
So you think this was a failure on the prosecutions part? You think a better prosecutor could have gotten a conviction? Is there some piece of evidence that is not accounted for that the prosecution ignored? That they failed on?
I think the prosecutor failed on a couple of things. One they overcharged the case at Murder 2. That was a political move that backfired. Murder 2 required them to prove (under Florida law) a "depraved mind". They would have been better structuring a case targeting Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide. Even then though it would have been tough. Secondly they made the defenses case by letting Zimmerman "testify" through the police interviews.
Perhaps if you argued for a lesser charge that might be logical, but even then I suggest you provide evidence of Zimmerman's guilt to a lesser charge?
I've said for over a year that Murder 2 was an overcharge.
No. In fact I think Zimmerman is a stone cold dumbass. That doesn't make him guilty though.
I agree. I'd have voted "not guilty", the proscution just didn't have the evidence to convict in this case.
But don't lie. You don't agree with the verdict. You disagree with the verdict.
Here is a deal. You tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think. I don't need you to tell me what I think.
Here is what I think:
1. Zimmerman is a dumbass. We agree.
2. The verdict was correct. The prosecution didn't prove Murder 2.
You agree with the. Logic of the verdict...which would require higher standards of evidence than could have been provided to prove his guilt...but not the actual verdict. Why else would you make the case against it?
:sigh:
I'm not making a case against the verdict. What I have done is disagree with those that come on here and state as a "fact" that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman. We don't know that as a "fact" all there is to support it is Zimmerman's account of those few seconds between the end of the phone call and John coming on scene. Just because Zimmerman said so does not make it "fact". That's it, that's all I've disagreed with.
Given that those seconds are an "unknown", the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" applies. There is a reasonable doubt, therefore the verdict is correct. Just because I think the verdict is correct doesn't mean that Zimmerman story has to accepted as gospel.
It is not easy to be consistent. In fact eye witness testimony is further and further being shown to be unreliable. In addition minor details can certainly be mixed up. But this isn't a case of a few seconds. This case also includes the 4 missing minutes of Martin's location. Did he exit the scene and return? He had 80 yards to cover in 4 minutes. That shows intent...if he returned to the scene of the incident and confronted Zimmerman. And yes...that is legal...but physically assaulting someone is not. And the only evidence we have...is Zimmerman's story, but his story is backed by physical evidence.
No, it's not the "4 minutes", it's the few seconds which I've been addressing. We have time stamps based on Martins phone call and the first 911 call being received. THAT is the period of time where there is an unknown.
Secondly, the time from Martin running away from the vehicle, most of which phone records show he was in contact with another person don't matter because Martin was under NO requirement to retreat if he felt danger from the weird guy that had chased/pursued/followed him across the housing development in his vehicle and then on foot.
BROKEN. Not just bloody!!! He did not deviate his septum. That doesn't mean he did not break his nose. And really at that point it doesn't matter.
No medical records were entered showing the nose was broken. The EMT's said it was possible, the Doctor said it was possible - but Zimmerman refused treatment and the tests to confirm. Go make and review the EMT report and the testimony at trial.
>>>>