Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231
In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.
Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.
|
Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.
It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.