There is not one shred of evidence Zimmerman was defending himself [View all]

[Shankapotomus]

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

For what its worth (not much), here's how I see this particular argument from the defense:

The witness testimony that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman is irrelevant since we don't know who assaulted whom first.

Trayvon Martin could just as easily have been defending himself from Zimmerman, even while winning and on top.

That Martin assaulted Zimmerman remains in the realm of what some people THINK, not what they know.

And so such speculation should not be considered when judging Zimmerman's culpability. Only what we KNOW.

We know Zimmerman mistakenly thought Martin was a burglar. He wasn't. That's Zimmerman error number one.

We know Zimmerman called police on an innocent person. That's Zimmerman error number two.

We know, at least at one point from Zimmerman's own admission, Zimmerman was trailing an innocent person.

We know, for sure, from independent confirmation from both sides of this case, that, at one point, Martin was running away from Zimmerman.

We know, at one point, the two subjects encountered each other.

And finally, we know, for certain, after mistaking him for a burglar, trailing him and calling the police on him, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman shot and killed someone who would later be found to not have been engaged in criminal activity, as Zimmerman had suspected. That's Zimmerman error number three.

We DON'T know, or have any corroborating evidence that Martin ever double backed and approached Zimmerman.

We DON'T know, or have any corroborating evidence Martin followed, assaulted or even threatened Zimmerman first.

None of those DON'TS people are using to judge Zimmerman's non-culpability are actual independently confirmed facts.

We must stick with the facts, only what we know for certain and when judging what we know for certain, it is best to go with either facts that have been agreed to by both sides or facts that have been submitted by independent eyewitness testimony under oath.

All we know is Zimmerman mistakenly identified Martin as a possible criminal, followed him, alerted police to him, encountered him and shot and killed him.

That's all we know and that's all we need to know to convict George Zimmerman, from my perspective.

Am I wrong?