IT DOESN'T MATTER Whose Voice It Was!

Considering the state Zimmerman was in after the incident, i.e. how badly beaten he'd been, I'd have no trouble believing that it was him screaming.. And there's no way I'd convict him based on the claim that it was Martin doing the screaming. Way too much doubt there, as with other aspects of the prosecution's case.

Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. He was beating the guy. The guy did what he had to do when no help was forthcoming to get out of the situation and save himself.

 

They don't need me or anyone else on their team. All they need is a non-biased, objective jury...heheh.

 

could mean Zimmerman pulled the gun on him and the kid was trying to wrestle it away from him while yelling for help

 

Exactly right, and I already refuted him in post # 5.

 

Could, but there was a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and saw Zimmerman yelling for help.

 

and then mama bear said to papa bear....

 

no witness saw it start, so it very well could of happened that way

 

If Zimmerman pulled the gun first, and Martin was trying to get it away from him, how did Zimmerman get the injuries? Are you suggesting that Zimmerman pulled his gun, then Martin started beating on Zimmerman, while a gun was pointed at him? Remember the prosecution has to prove the shooting happened in a nefarious fashion, "could of happened that way" is reserved for the defense's reasonable doubt.

 

which means george's account stands. "could of" doesn't prove squat in court. in fact the law says that if two likely scenarios are presented and both are possible then it is to be resolved in favor of the defense. it is called innocent until proven guilty. look into it.

- - - Updated - - -

which means george's account stands. "could of" doesn't prove squat in court. in fact the law says that if two likely scenarios are presented and both are possible then it is to be resolved in favor of the defense. it is called innocent until proven guilty. look into it.

 

wrestling over the gun....

I agree, just correcting the things people are claiming as fact, when they have no way of knowing

they have to prove murder and then he has to prove it was self defense...


.

 

let's say I am walking down the street, minding my own business, someone comes up and pulls a gun on me, I struggle to get the Gun, he shoots me, I die

are you saying if the DA can prove he shot me and killed me, but he claims self defense, he should walk without having to prove it's self defense?

George killed the only witness...

.

 

sorry, that is how it works.

 

SO you agree with me that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And Zimmerman did Not "admit" (a word which infers wrongdoing), he stated (a word that does not infer wrongdoing). Nor do the words of the dispatcher have any bearing on the case either.

http://www.politicalforum.com/law-justice/307248-doesnt-matter-what-dispatcher-said.html