I'm confused. How does this photo prove that Martin attacked/approached Zimmerman first? To me, it just shows who had the upper hand in the fight, well except for the bullet hole in Martin's chest of course.

I'm confused. How does this photo prove that Martin attacked/approached Zimmerman first? To me' date=' it just shows who had the upper hand in the fight, well except for the bullet hole in Martin's chest of course.[/quote']

 

It doesn't prove anything. But it is evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of what happened.

It doesn't prove anything. But it is evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of what happened.

 

Not really. It doesn't prove what position Zimmerman was in when he shot Martin. It just shows that Martin jacked his face up.

 

Not really. It doesn't prove what position Zimmerman was in when he shot Martin. It just shows that Martin jacked his face up.

 

I never said it proved anything. Re-read my post. It supports his version of what happened.

 

He said he was attacked and punched in the face. A bloody broken nose supports that.

I never said it proved anything. Re-read my post. It supports his version of what happened.

 

He said he was attacked and punched in the face. A bloody broken nose supports that.

 

Perhaps it would better be said that it supports SOME of what Zimmerman said happened.

I never said it proved anything. Re-read my post. It supports his version of what happened.

 

He said he was attacked and punched in the face. A bloody broken nose supports that.

 

Having a bloody nose supports he was attacked? It can also support that Travon was acting in self-defense, when HE was attacked by Zimmerman.

Some of you are just looking to argue. I'm not saying it confirms his story. I'm not saying it proves anything.

 

I'm saying it is evidence that the defense can use to support his story.

 

If he claimed he was attacked and had absolutely no injuries, everyone of you would argue he has no evidence to support his story. But that's not the case. He says he was attacked, punched in the nose and had his head slammed on the concrete. Well...he had a broken nose and a cut on the back of his head. The police took photos of the injuries on the night of the shooting. It's obvious it is evidence that supports what he says happened.

 

Perhaps it would better be said that it supports SOME of what Zimmerman said happened.

 

If you want to argue about the wording...okay. But regardless it still supports his statement.

 

Once again to be clear, it proves nothing other than that he suffered injuries. It doesn't mean his story is 100% accurate. It does provide the defense with some evidence to use to support what he says happened.

Some of you are just looking to argue. I'm not saying it confirms his story. I'm not saying it proves anything.

 

I'm saying it is evidence that the defense can use to support his story.

 

If he claimed he was attacked and had absolutely no injuries, everyone of you would argue he has no evidence to support his story. But that's not the case. He says he was attacked, punched in the nose and had his head slammed on the concrete. Well...he had a broken nose and a cut on the back of his head. The police took photos of the injuries on the night of the shooting. It's obvious it is evidence that supports what he says happened.

 

As if you aren't to looking to argue. :lol: :lol:

My whole problem with Zimmerman's use of the "stand your ground" defense is this: Trayvon Martin was walking to his Dad's house. He was doing nothing wrong. He was followed by someone that he didn't know in a vehicle and then had the person try to follow him on foot. Didn't he have just as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman did? Zimmerman was instructed by 911 not to pursue Martin--if he had followed those instructions then Martin would be alive. I'm not sure Zimmerman should be charged with murder because once the confrontation occurred I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to believe that Zimmerman was afraid for his life. However, he should be charged for some kind of negligence for causing the situation. That should be what the case is about. From the pictures it is obvious that there was a physical confrontation and Zimmerman took a beating to some extent. How much blame is his for causing the confrontation is what needs to be decided.

My whole problem with Zimmerman's use of the "stand your ground" defense is this: Trayvon Martin was walking to his Dad's house. He was doing nothing wrong. He was followed by someone that he didn't know in a vehicle and then had the person try to follow him on foot. Didn't he have just as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman did? Zimmerman was instructed by 911 not to pursue Martin--if he had followed those instructions then Martin would be alive. I'm not sure Zimmerman should be charged with murder because once the confrontation occurred I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to believe that Zimmerman was afraid for his life. However, he should be charged for some kind of negligence for causing the situation. That should be what the case is about. From the pictures it is obvious that there was a physical confrontation and Zimmerman took a beating to some extent. How much blame is his for causing the confrontation is what needs to be decided.

 

And why the prosecutors maybe shouldn't have gone with an all or nothing murder charge.

My whole problem with Zimmerman's use of the "stand your ground" defense is this: Trayvon Martin was walking to his Dad's house. He was doing nothing wrong. He was followed by someone that he didn't know in a vehicle and then had the person try to follow him on foot. Didn't he have just as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman did? Zimmerman was instructed by 911 not to pursue Martin--if he had followed those instructions then Martin would be alive. I'm not sure Zimmerman should be charged with murder because once the confrontation occurred I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to believe that Zimmerman was afraid for his life. However' date=' he should be charged for some kind of negligence for causing the situation. That should be what the case is about. From the pictures it is obvious that there was a physical confrontation and Zimmerman took a beating to some extent. How much blame is his for causing the confrontation is what needs to be decided.[/quote']

 

According to Zimmerman's story he didn't confront Martin.

The man used a gun against a 16 year old boy who had nothing but two fists. To me, that says it all.

According to Zimmerman's story he didn't confront Martin.

 

I didn't say that he did. I said that a confrontation occurred. That is indisputable. Zimmerman was in his car when he initially spotted Martin. Had he stayed in his car as instructed instead of attempting to follow Martin then the confrontation doesn't take place. Martin had every bit as much reason to be scared of Zimmerman and just as much right to stand his ground. If Zimmerman doesn't take it upon himself to pursue Martin then none of this happens. That is indisputable as well. I don't necessarily think he should be charged with murder but his negligence should be punished.

From a legal standpoint the fact that Zimmerman didn't stay in his car is irrelevant.