Quote:
Originally Posted by dillywho
While I agree with the scenario as you presented it, I have other questions. You know/knew who Mike Tyson is, GZ didn't know TM or anything about him.
I see many of GZ's statements as outright lies and not inconsistencies, although some are simply inconsistencies. We only have the story as he has told it. That being said, he claims he was reaching in his pocket for his cell phone when face to face with TM. How did TM know it was a phone and not a gun? What is the relevance of which pocket he had put it into? He claims he forgot which pocket and it was in the one where he didn't normally put it. How would TM know where he normally put his phone? Why did he put it in any pocket if he were expecting a call at any minute from the police to tell them where he was at that time as he had asked the dispatcher to have them do? Even if it was because of the rain, he could have had his hand on it in his pocket.
There are two versions out there of the words that were exchanged. Not being sure who said what based on what GZ has said, as I asked previously, how did TM know that he was reaching for a phone and not a gun? Does he not then have the right to defend himself, especially from a rough looking character like GZ was that night, not the GZ you see in court presently? GZ never bothered to tell him who he was, why he was following him around, ask him if he could help, nothing...nothing. He had several opportunities to do so and didn't because "he was afraid". Just because TM already had the better of GZ, why would he let him up to maybe finish getting his gun, especially since GZ thought TM "may have seen it or felt it' when he had him down? Not being armed himself, this kid had the right to do whatever he could to save his own life if he felt that he was the one in danger.
Like I said before, too many questions and not enough answers.
|
Even if your narrative had the possibility of being true, it is insufficient to send this person to jail for life. Unless you know it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt - which you admit that you don't, a not guilty verdict has to be the result. I hope no one condones sending someone to prison based on conjecture.
You say Zimmerman had an opportunity to stop this and didn't. We don't know that for a fact. However, we do know that Martin had an opportunity to stop it and chose not to. When Good came out and told him to stop he had the perfect opportunity to say something like, "he's got a gun and wants to shoot me!" or "he attacked me!" or just stopped the beating and kept Zimmerman pinned down in a helpless position - knowing that there was now a witness should Zimmerman try to do something. He chose none of these options and just continued the beating. This is the clearest testimony that Martin was no longer in self defense mode (if he ever was) and was now in attack mode.
Why does it matter which pocket he put his phone in? Why should he have to justify putting his phone in his pocket rather than holding on to it. Are you suggesting that that by putting his phone in his pocket it adds to the case that he is guilty? If so, how so?
As to my bar room scenario. Change Mike Tyson to any random person and play the scenario out. It still doesn't give the random person the right to continually beat someone to the point where their life may be threatened.