Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
That's not the same as "nothing at all." The trial presented more than "nothing" to suggest that Martin could have been the attacker. Including not only the defendants account, but evidence like the injuries and the 911 call where he said he would stop and you hear him stop. Is that enough evidence to say for sure? Absolutely not. But to say nothing at all is teetering to the point of arguing for arguing sake. Which is too bad because you bring up solid points in a lot of your posts and then go and say things like there was no evidence Martin attacked him first....
|
It's pretty easy to make an argument when the only person who can rebut it is dead. I'm sorry, but I give Zimmerman's account zero weight.