TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
I agree, it does imply GZ was behind him at some point. I even agree GZ actually was behind him ay some point.First, if Martin said, "Why are you following me?" [and Zimmerman was, although his supporters contend it was inadvertent], I think that implies he was "behind him."George is walking south on RVC as evidenced by the wind. Trayvon saying "now he's behind me" Implying a switch in orientation.
I don't agree that it means Dan can infer GZ was walking south on RVC, or that there was any "switch in orientation"
Did Martin's father say at first, "I don't know, " if that was his son's voice or did he say "No?" and later decide to lie?
I don't know either.
The fact that 4 LEOs claim they heard him say "no" makes me believe he actually said no. How about you ?
Aren't you mostly making assumptions as well?
I don't think so. Mostly I am pointing out the flaws and holes in Dan Os narrative.
Again, if Zimmerman provoked the final confrontation he was guilty of murder. If Trayvon Martin provoked it, in the manner in which George Zimmerman describes it, than it was a justifiable shooting.
It has already been pointed out this is incorrect/
Only there's very little evidence to go on. I'm saying there's no real way to know. That we will never know conclusively what really happened. There's some reason to believe half of the jurors initially wanted to convict Zimmerman. I believe the jury mostly ruled based on the lack of evidence.
And ?
That no matter how anyone denigrates Trayvon Martin, his father, Rachel Jeantel, the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP etc etal, that does not change the fact:
There is not enough evidence to know conclusively what happened. There just isn't.
No, but that doesn't mean any particular fantasy put forth is a viable narrative of possible events.
The fact is, the prosecution didn't even try to sell the jury on a narrative of what they think happened. They tried simply to discredit GZ version, and failed.