In response to somebody that I would label a "Troll", Chip Bennett took the time to treat the (repeated) troll post seriously, and answer it in detail. Chip often does this. IMO it is wasted on the Troll, but still great posting since it is a great way to restate some case details for the rest of us.
Ps. Im certain I’m far more conservative than most of you are…
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Nevertheless, I’ll take you at your word. As such, I trust that you are a literal constructionist with respect to the Constitution, and therefore believe wholeheartedly in the principles of presumption of innocence of the accused, due process, and equal protection. Knowing that you believe wholeheartedly in these principles, I further trust that you recognize that the State, as the accuser, bears the full burden of proof regarding the crimes with which Zimmerman has been charged.
Great! Let’s proceed:
I realize that Trayvon Martin whooped-up on Zimmerman, and that physical evidence supports that. — I’m talking about the confrontation(s) which LED to the fight.
So, you recognize that, under Florida statute, unless Zimmerman was otherwise committing a crime at the time of the altercation, or was the physical aggressor that instigated the altercation, that he is fully and unequivocally immune from prosecution for homicide, because his use of lethal force was legally justified as an act of self-defense.
(Side note: I assume you also recognize that, even if the State can somehow prove that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor that instigated the altercation, that said instigation, while depriving him of civil immunity, would not deprive him of his right to use self-defense under Florida statutes.)
Thus, we are at this point: the State bears the burden to prove that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor who instigated the altercation, or was otherwise committing a crime when the altercation occurred. Zimmerman’s testimony (which has been utterly consistent, both with respect to the several times he has been asked to relate the events of that night, and with respect to all known physical evidence and eye-witness testimony) is entirely irrelevant on this point. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove that he was not committing a crime or was not the physical aggressor; rather, the State has to prove that Zimmerman was committing a crime, or that he was the physical aggressor.
So what does the physical evidence and eye-witness testimony tell us?
Every single eye-witness identified Martin as being on top of Zimmerman. No eye-witness saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. No eye-witness saw Zimmerman attacking Martin. The autopsy found absolutely no evidence that Martin had been punched or otherwise assaulted.
The State’s star witness, DeeDee, testifies that it was Martin who verbally accosted Zimmerman prior to the assault.
There is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was in any way the physical aggressor who instigated the altercation.
George Zimmerman claims something like, ‘Oh I stopped following him, I was just looking for a street sign, outside of my truck & here he comes, out of nowhere, swinging at me.’
The evidence and timeline support such an account:
- Zimmerman claims that he lost visual contact with Martin.
- DeeDee testified that Martin had successfully eluded Zimmerman.
- Zimmerman claims he never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”.
- The attack occurred at in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”.
- Brandi Green’s home was some 70 yards south of the sidewalk “T”.
- DeeDee testified that Martin was “right by” her house after eluding Zimmerman.
Therefore, the only plausible scenario is the one in which Martin left the vicinity of Brandi Green’s house and returned to the vicinity of the sidewalk “T” to confront Zimmerman.
But George is clearly a conniving b.s. guy.
Objection: speculation. Arguing facts not in evidence.
Since you keep demanding more evidence: where is your evidence for this otherwise specious assertion?
So how can anyone just think he’s telling the truth?
Maybe because the law requires accepting his testimony as truthful until proven otherwise?
Maybe because all existing physical/forensic evidence and eye-witness testimony is consistent with, if not outright corroborative of, his testimony?
Unless you’re already taking his side without respect to anything else.
Straw man. Everything I’ve posted involves empirical, physical evidence and eye-witness testimony. None of what I’ve posted relies on Zimmerman’s testimony. I’ve merely indicated where Zimmerman’s testimony is corroborated by other evidence.
Then you admit that your point is a straw man, based on a specious premise.
I wish there was more evidence. Thank you.
I don’t believe that a security camera recording that captured the entire altercation would disabuse you of your preconceived notions regarding either the character of George Zimmerman or the truth of what happened that night.
You believe that Zimmerman is a “conniving b.s. artist”, and that he is guilty. No amount of evidence will change your mind.
You wish there was more evidence. I wish that Martin supporters weren’t so obtuse.