Good post. About covers the pertinence. Highly likely that Martin double backed because he felt “dissed”. He dissed me. You dis me! I’m going whoop you since you dissed me! I’ve seen this type of attitude more than a few times.
This case needs to be dismissed.
Geraldo's analysis of the Aaron Hernandez murder case is that Hernandez got enraged over a perceived insult. He fails to recognize that the same explanation accounts for Trayvon's behavior--going to attack Zimmerman when he had no reason to, other than that he saw that Zimmerman was observing what he was up to.
If Zimmerman had not come along, nobody would have heard of either of them...but one of the local homeowners might have come home and found his place robbed.
Apparently that "younger brother" that Trayvon supposedly went to buy Skittles for isn't related to him--he is a son of Trayvon's father's then-girlfriend.
The issue for the DA is not that GZ was justified to shoot TM, but GZ following TM provoked a fight that ended with a shooting that could have been avoided. CCW need to understand this nuance of the law when using a gun. Why this law exists is to prevent armed people from saying or doing things that they normally will not do if unarmed. Example a hothead armed with a CCW Glock, goes to a bar and starts an argument with a bigger guy, which results in a fight, a fight he is losing and then he shoots his bigger and stronger attacker and claims self defense when the cops come. In a drawn out event, self defense is valid if the gunowner did not start the fight, and did everything to de escalate the situation before he had to shoot. Jentel was a bad witness but she established one thing, TM noticed GZ was following him. Question to jury, is that legally considered a provocation? Non of the witnesses so far can account for the events after the cellphone call and neighbor who saw TM on top of GZ. What transpire can determine GZ guilt or innocence. When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land. GZ claim that he was confronted and attacked by TM while he was heading back to his SUV. Heading back to the SUV is considered a de escalating action. If TM felt threaten by GZ following him, he can attack if GZ was following him. If GZ was heading back to his SUV, TM cannot follow and attack GZ for the perceived threat. There no witness to back up GZ claimed he was attacked after he was heading for his SUV, and TM is dead and cannot tell his side of the story. Unless the DA has evidence or witness that GZ lied, GZ is most likely to be off the hook. IMHO who is right or wrong depends on the back and forth between the two men. This trial is not so clear cut.
And, certainly, dissed!
Heard some guy on Hannity Friday claiming that Martin was “standing his ground” because Zimmerman was threatening him.
Sorry, mister race-before-truth, but once Zim was not a threat, ie, subdued on the ground, Martin’s continued beating of him constituted a deadly assault.
Doesn’t matter at that point, Zim is still entitled to defend himself.