Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck2
Would you suggest a kid talking to his girlfriend carrying skittles would attempt to make contact with a complete stranger for no reason or would it be more believable that the cop wannabe was following and after words were exchanged a fight ensued where the scumbag got the short end of the stick?
And let's not ignore the fact that it was proved that the cops told him to stop following him and leave him alone. Martin had nothing to gain to confront the cop wannabe. Zimmerman provoked the situation, it's very obvious and it's no surprise that a group of 6 mostly white jurors who probably can't find their state on a map decided against the black dude. Racism is alive and well in the great USA.
|
Given the facts that were/are presented:
Zimmerman apparently did retreat. At least at first.
If Zimmerman did confront Martin, how did Martin end up on top of Zimmerman without a scratch?
Also the question isn't what's more believable, but is it believable that Martin could reasonably have been the confronter/aggressor?
Zimmerman never had an issue in the past, Martin was on top of him punching away without a scratch.
Seems odd.
The system is, you must find someone guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. you have raised doubts, and may be correct on a balance of probabilities, but there is reasonable doubt here.
It is reasonable to infer that Martin COULD have been the aggressor. Not that he actually was.
That's enough to warrant a verdict of not-guilty.
Also Zimmerman has called a vast amount of suspicious persons to the police of various races, including his own.
I don't believe this is racism, if anything it's ageism. The fact Martin was an unknown teenager appears to have played a greater role in Zimmerman's thinking than Martin's race.