> Like I said, have you seen any actual evidence of that? "Initiated the confrontation"
> is rather different than "attacked." Following him initiates the confrontation.
Well assuming M threw the first punch, from his point of view he was defending himself against some psycho who was chasing him through the neighbourhood he was staying in temporarily. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, why are you so sure it was an "attack" as such?
> The source I heard -calling him guilty for having loaded his gun- said M hid from Z,
> who was following him, and jumped him, not knowing he had said gun. then the idiot
> radio guy presented the audio from the call.
Sure, loading his gun doesn't automatically make him guilty. But see above: "jumping" some psycho who's chasing you for no apparent reason sounds a lot like a defensive move to me.
> Now go back, look at my post. I said "the only evidence I've heard..." because, in
> fact, that WAS the only thing I've heard of the case AT ALL. Even in this thread, the
> video contains no information during the portion of it I could stand to watch.
I still consider the dead body of an unarmed teenage to be evidence against him. It's awfully convenient that dead men tell no tales. If you want to go down the path of accepting the self defence argument in the absence of bulletproof evidence to the contrary, you end up with a situation where the best course of action in a situation where you may be in the wrong is to kill the other guy so you can claim self defence and walk free.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Zimmerman Trial Skype Bombing
Reply
