Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. There has not been a single witness that can positively confirm it was or was not self defense. The prosecution is struggling in my opinion against a defense that isn't much to breag about either.
The fact of the matter is that it was raining and very dark. The witnesses couldn't see clearly enough, or see enough of what happened to ice the cake on this case.
We can all speculate and I am guilty of this as well as to what really happened.
1 man knows, but there is a thing called perception. GZ's perseption was he just got his butt handed to him and he was in mortal danger. I cannot discount that maybe he was afraid for his life.
I have never been completely owned in a fight. I have lost my share but I was never owned.
This might have been the first real fight GZ was ever in.
Honestly, I think based on what I'm seeing and hearing that it really is the first fight he was ever in. I can't say for sure. However, he does strike me, at least based on the phone calls about suspicious people and desire to head up the neighborhood watch as a bit of a nosy neighbor personality. I don't know but he just strikes me as wimpy.
That being said, I cannot deny there was obvious injuries to his face. I can also confirm that no one called thus far by the prosecution has offered anything to counter the self-defense argument. Last I checked, there's no 'beaten enough' qualification to self-defense - it's all about perception. I think thus far self-defense is a valid defense and the prosecution has not managed to counter that.
As an aside, I finally caught up on the testimony. Beating a dead horse comes to mind because both the prosecution and the defense seem to be asking the witnesses the same questions over and over again in 50 different ways.
I see nothing there even close to what ***** Malkin posted. What's the point of the pics in which the young man appears to be trying to blow smoke rings, is smoking illegal?
Yes, at 17 it is. It's also illegal to grow pot and have a handgun at 17 in Florida.
I see nothing there even close to what ***** Malkin posted. What's the point of the pics in which the young man appears to be trying to blow smoke rings, is smoking illegal?
On a side note, the photo that MM posted showed a fake Trayvon Martin flipping off the camera looking like a tug.
What about this real photos of TM? Are you equally upset about it or has your faux outrage settled down a bit?
As Biden would say, "big f'n deal" - NOT! Just proves how backwards stupid Florida law is.
I kind of think him possessing a pistol might be a bit on the illegal side as well. Oh wait, that's just "what those kids do nowadays".
It would seem from the pictures and his language good old T.M. was "acting gangsta". Or was he acting?
Was he playing the "gangsta" when he confronted G.Z.? Maybe. It seems that's the way he rolled so it's certainly possible.
Honestly, I think based on what I'm seeing and hearing that it really is the first fight he was ever in. I can't say for sure. However, he does strike me, at least based on the phone calls about suspicious people and desire to head up the neighborhood watch as a bit of a nosy neighbor personality. I don't know but he just strikes me as wimpy.
That being said, I cannot deny there was obvious injuries to his face. I can also confirm that no one called thus far by the prosecution has offered anything to counter the self-defense argument. Last I checked, there's no 'beaten enough' qualification to self-defense - it's all about perception. I think thus far self-defense is a valid defense and the prosecution has not managed to counter that.
As an aside, I finally caught up on the testimony. Beating a dead horse comes to mind because both the prosecution and the defense seem to be asking the witnesses the same questions over and over again in 50 different ways.
LOL agreed. He strikes me as that neighbor always watching out their window. Every neighborhood has one.
It is obvious to all except some that he was hit in the face at least 1 time. He also has the cuts on his head to prove his head hit something.
On the other hand TM had no GZ DNA in the places where a prolonged battle would have left DNA. Anyone who ever tried to wash blood off their hands can tell you it isn't as easy as it sounds. It gets in every crevise, crack and sticks like glue. Thats why I believe TM downed GZ with a single punch in the face.
The time line of the fight. I can understand why GZ felt like it was forever. I have never been in a fight that felt like it was a 30 second todo even when it was only 30 seconds which most fights just dont last a long time.
The beaten enough angle. I agree with you once again.
The lawyers. Beating a dead horse is a perfect summary of the trial so far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
