Trayvon Martin Case

Pretty much. Except "and intent to harm" isn't needed. It is presumed someone breaking into your home has an "intent to harm".

Yeah...i added on at the end. I thought about after and intent is understood.

I tell you what interesting is confusion around someone in your yard and taking property. In Va you cant shoot and kill someone in breaking into/stealing your car or stealing property out the yard. But I want to say thats different around the country. In some states i think you can. Not sure I could be the one confused...

One of the more idiotic posts on WP, ever, RGIII, AND I include all of mine in that calculation.

Well since you guys are so smart, play nigg-- I mean devil's advocate and defend Martin's case. You guys got OJ off the first time right? Or were you guys mad at that because he was black. The truth is, if Zimmerman was a gung-ho black wannabe cop who killed a white kid in the same scenario he would have be, tried, found guilty of murder, and executed the same day. Dead giveaway, dead giveaway...

*sigh*

Zimmermqn said that Martin circled his car and despite his "fear" of him he still managed to get out of his car. That is not reasonable and it certainly diminishes his claim of fearing for his life. If the question is if there is a reason to doubt the evidence against him I can find non.

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 could not be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 could not be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.
^flashlight lawyer *sigh*

607 and.......counting......down

I admit it ... I simply do not understand either of the two previous posts.

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 could not be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.

We can speculate about different scenarios including the possibility that Zimmerman had his weapon drawn from the get go and the struggled for the gun ensued while he was attempting to pistol-whip Martin. That fact of the case are pretty simple and it's a matter of using your common sense.


Profiled Martin as one of those "****ing punks. Those assholes, they always get away"
Pursued Martin
Violate community protocol
Get out of car after Martin allegedly circled his car
Inconstant statements about what happened
Inconsistent statements about why got out of his car
He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watchman
Shoots and kills Martin during a struggle that was avoidable
Goes on national TV and says "This is all god's plan and I wouldn't do anything differently (blatant disregard for human life).



Anything is possible in this world but we have to rely on the facts of the case and the fact of the case are sufficient enough to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter (at a minimum), The burden of proof has been met by the state and nothing in the defense persuasive enough to arrive at an alternative verdict. It is that simple.

My inferences are no more speculative than yours. I cited to and relied on testimony and physical evidence.

Prove, by direct evidence, that any inference I have drawn could not have occurred.