Thank you for your post. To say that "we only heard one side of the story" is simply an appeal to popular jargon and is a false dichotomy in that it is predicated on that the only usable evidence is derived from either from Martin or Zimmerman at the exclusion of all other sources. Any verbal testimony from Martin or Zimmerman is but one component of the entire body of evidence. Martins known actions and words do testify along with other witness testimony and physical evidences. You say, "Factually, you don't know what happened that night." What you are essentially saying here is that the specific words, actions and steps as relates to these men engaging one another is substantially unknown. If this be the case then one should err to Zimmerman's innocence and not to his guilt. The less we know the less we can accuse Zimmerman of wrong doing. Just because something is plausible doesn't make it probable or factual. As for me, in the absence of evidence I will side with the volunteer, the benefactor, the homeowner, the taxpayer, the patriot, the voter and those that attend community meetings where neighbors discuss life, safety and community involvement. Zimmerman was all those things.(yes, Zim had a few rubs also. We can discuss if you want to). Respectfully,
I don't blame 'em for wanting to carry a gun - with all the uneducated racist ghetto bangers out there calling for his head (who's outrage would be nonexistant had Zimmerman been the same color as Treyvon) He should've made it an AR-15, not a measly handgun.
wha?? let us examine your familiarity of US courts..................what level of court are you talking about?
The court is obliged to presume innocence. It has, and think that's appropriate. But like you, I don't have to base my opinion on that same standard. You'd prefer to side with someone because he owns real estate. I'd prefer to be skeptical of the man who went looking for a fight and found one. We're both entitled to our own judgements. And no, we didn't here Trayvon's side. Trayvon was not able to testify. Someone shot and killed him before he could.
funny how a criminal gets his while committing a crime and then people jump to his defense with insane statements. Then he should not have been casing apartments to rob...he'd be a lot better off and maybe alive too. He was a thug and an idiot thug to boot
Thank you for your reply, I think our big difference here is that you favor what is possible and what is plausible. Meanwhile, Im a fan of what is probable and what is factual. Respectfully.
Just curious as to anyone's opinion. If a citizen is presumed innocent of the criminal charges unless convicted and is found not guilty is one still presumed innocent? Why or why not? I get the OJ thing (some corrupted jurors). Then there is the Anthony (rush to judgment) and Zimmerman (politically motivated) cases. In the last two, the case evidence presented did not meet the elements of the specific charges/crimes for those charged with the duty to weigh the evidence.
You're right. An AR-15 is more effective for killing people than a measly handgun. All neighborhood watchmen should carry an AR-15 around in a police state where people get followed and shot by armed guards. What a pleasant place to live in.
That would be Martin's Girlfriend's testimony. We didn't here Trayvon's. Trayvon was not able to testify. Someone shot and killed him before he could.
You could say that. Or one could say "Trayvon was not able to testify. Someone shot and killed him in self defense before he could." Ms Jeantel offered an account of certain aspects of what Martin said and perceived. For what that was worth. And consider that she was on Martins side of things, not against. Respectfully,
