Attorneys for George Zimmerman apologized Sunday for mischaracterizing evidence they said boosted their theory that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in his fatal meeting with their client last year.
Lawyer Mark O’Mara said during a hearing last Tuesday that the defense had obtained video footage of three fights, including one in which he said two of Martin’s friends "were beating up a homeless guy."
But Zimmerman's defense team corrected that statement on Sunday, saying O'Mara had unintentionally "misstated the nature" of the footage
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
This comment on the link provided sums it up perfectly and anything but an acquittal would mean either brain dead jurors or they are dishonest and do not give a rat's butt about justice-
ReplyDelete"Rhino40---
Justice would have been served if this thing had never gone to trial. There is plenty of admissible evidence that Zimmerman had the living crap kicked out of him by Martin. In order to believe Zimmerman guilty of murder you must also believe Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, bloodied his own knuckles on Zimmerman's face and put a nice gash in the back of Zimmerman's head, all while already having a bullet put through his heart. Unless you can swallow that you must agree that Zimmerman acted in self defense."
822, not here to judge the case or say the prosecution is correct. Just here to point out that although Zimmerman had clearly been struck, a huge part of this case revolves around whether Zim. initiated the confrontation. Again, not trying to judge the case because none of us will have all the evidence until the trial is completed. But one can make a pretty compelling case that Zimmerman initiated the altercation and Martin felt threatened enough to defend himself, afterwhich he was shot. I'm ready for the trial to complete, regardless of the verdict.
ReplyDeleteThe one fighing for his life that night is dead.
ReplyDeleteOnly in those whose minds refuse to be honest with themselves, 10:17
ReplyDeleteMartin is dead because he picked an armed to beat up this time. Either you are completely clueless about this case or are lying and refusing to see the truth.
9:28-It doesn't matter one iota who initiated the confrontation. All the jury has to decide is if Zimmerman acted in self defense. Who initiated what isn't a factor, only if Zimmerman was justified in using the force that he did in order to stop thug Martin's blows.
Who intitiated the confrontation is a factor 1:17. If Zimmerman initiated it then its not self defense under the stand your ground law but murder. Do you really think there is a law that would let you go around initiating confrontations then letting you claim self defense. NOT !!!
ReplyDeleteWhere have you been 4:31? Zimmerman waived the stand your ground defense-for now anyway. Not that it matters though because even under stand you ground what matters is the moment and whether there was reasonable belief of an UNLAWFUL THREART. The UNLAWFUL THREAT is apparent (it actually went beyond only a threat)-Zimmerman's injuries and Martin's lack of (pre fatal gun shot wound) except for bloody knuckles indicative of being an aggressor in an assault.
ReplyDeleteBTW 4:31-Self defense and stand your ground are 2 different legal theories. Under stand your ground you haven't a duty to retreat as you do (if you can)in self defense. In other words under self defense if you had a chance to get away and didn't and then shot a person you could be found guilty because you didn't retreat.
ReplyDelete4:31, It does not matter legally who initiated the confrontation if the confrontation is already done. It never does in law. What matters is, was there a way for Zimmerman to avoid shooting Martin and if so was he was justified. Nothing else matters. Who initiated after the fact is a question of moral judgment which isn't for the courts to decide.
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect 4:31. Even if Zimmerman set in motion the events that led to Martin's death it makes no difference. While it may be stupid, all that matters is whether or not a jury believes that during the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman reasonably felt that his life was in danger and did everything he could to escape the situation under self defense which I believe is the defense now. Same goes under Stand Your Ground except that Zimmerman would not have to prove he did everything he could to escape. -He stood his ground no duty to retreat.
ReplyDelete1:17 funny how you seem to "know the truth" before anyone, besides the media, has brought the case to trial. Who needs those courts anyway
ReplyDelete