Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary84Clark
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.
|
He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event. |
Firing the shot was the conclusion of the physical confrontation - not it's initiation. Sorry, since "who initiated the physical confrontation" has been my central theme, I thought you smart enough to pick up on the nuance. Going forward, I shall not make any assumptions as to your ability for basic contextual analysis or, for that matter, any semblance of intelligence on your part.
Martin had a right to be where he was. Z had a right to be where he was. What neither had the right to do was initiate a physical confrontation or put the other in fear of imminent physical danger. Has the State shown
beyond a a reasonable doubt that Z initiated a physical confrontation or put the TM in fear of imminent physical danger? Does not appear that way to me.
Was TM a "scary unusual person"? Don't know, don't care and have never asserted anything one way or the other on the topic.
The assertion "they get into a wrestling match" glosses over most of the key factual elements the State needs to prove and completely eliminates others.