Don't need to be a lawyer to understand justice......I seen fights start for stuipider sh## than this and all parties are still alive today.

I'm not a lawyer, but could swear the prosecution was reading my posts as prep for his closing statements.
As usual Dipso wins again!

What you post above is probably known and understood by more lay people than you think.

Zimmerman claims to be "that person" and that Martin attacked him.

Had Zimmerman missed Martin and then died from a fractured skull, Martin would be "that person" and would now be on trial, saying that Zimmerman followed and shot at him and that, fearing for his life, he took down Zimmerman, in self defense.

Of course Martin's dead, so it's Zimmerman's word alone.

Martin didn't get out of his car and follow Zimmerman, ending up killing him.

Zimmerman did get out of his car and he did follow Martin and ended up shooting the 17 year old to death.

Were I on the jury and we were considering manslaughter, I'd be the juror hanging the jury before I'd agree to acquit Zimmerman.

"I'm on my way to my Dad's house."
End of story.

That's how it should have ended Dan, though I'd have gone with "none of your f'ing business" and kept walking myself.

So we're left with 2 scenarios. Zimmerman said something (I'm assuming innocently here) and Martin out and out attacked him for no good reason.

or

Zimmerman tried to detain Martin until the police arrived. Could have been as simple as standing in his way.

I'm going with the latter, ONLY because of what Zimmerman told the 911 operator, "these a-holes always get away."

I was 17 once. I could have out run almost anyone.

And the earwitness heard Travon say 'get off me'. I think Zimmerman had his gun out and grabbed travon by the shoulder or something.

I'm guessing you are French then.

No kidding. Zimmerman may be an idiot, or a fool, but all the kid had to do was keep walking home. My guess is that he challenged Zimmerman in an ugly way and that's where the problem really began in earnest.

It doesn't matter what I think, though, or what anybody else here thinks. It's all up to the evidence that is available and whether the jury follows the law or follows their feelings.

JR

This is the most interesting part, that people think Martin attacked Zimmerman. It is truly fascinating that you have to create unsubstantiated narrative to make it work.

Why create stories? Just work with what you know. The 911 operator said they didn't need Zimmerman to leave his vehicle. Zimmerman said, "these a-holes always get away." Zimmerman left his vehicle. Martin didn't get away.

I'm a fan of Occam's razor here.

Possibly. Irrelevant though.

So, what direct evidence do you have that proves otherwise?

Occam's razor trumps fanciful stories. See above. I prefer logic myself. But stories are fun, and they make you feel better I guess.

I don't care who you are, that's funny....

You did not answer my question...

I can also sell you a used rifle. Only been dropped once.

:d :D

Or in other words "cui bono". I heard that many times, and it seems true every time. Whom does the story benefit? Clearly the story about the claimed Trayvor Martin attack on Zimmerman benefits Zimmerman. And it was told by Zimmerman. Don't believe in Zimmerman!

You mean "cui bono". Still, not direct evidence. Useful in Sherlock Holmes mysteries, Hitchcock movies, and the like...

JR

Yeah, bad spelling, typed too fast.