“There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the public record that Zimmerman “provoked” an attack.”
I was listening to attorney Crump yesterday who created the PR to construct the racial storyline.Apparently they are going to try to counter the Zimmerman medical report with a new narrative that Zimmerman provoked Martin to attack first because Martin was in fear of his life because Zimmerman had a gun.Crump actually said Martin was “standing his ground” against a man with a gun.Of course, it is nonsense but it is ironic that those marching vs stand your ground law apparently are more than happy to use it for their own purposes
In other words they’re trying to base their prosecution on something that nobody saw.
What limited evidence there is seems to show that Zimmerman never made contact with Martin until just before Martin attacked him, and that he never displayed or brandished his weapon until he used it in self defense.
With any semi-rational jury, that just won’t fly.
Here is praying for a semi-rational jury and a judge that isn’t outrageously biased.
Not privy to the presentation by attorney Crump yesterday I can only surmise that any "provoking" alleged was a pure invention. It could be that they intended the words to be literally true, that the mere possession of a gun is a "provocation" justifying an assault by Martin in which case the mere exercise of Second Amendment rights by Zimmerman somehow become distorted into a provocation.
Just as the dispatcher's adjuration that "we don't need you to do that" became a mandatory directive of the police the disobedience of which was itself a crime, or a provocation, or evidence of guilt of some kind.
As far as I know the public record remains absolutely bereft of any evidence of wrongdoing by Zimmerman whatsoever. Surmise and speculation are simply not evidence.
To the contrary, every bit of evidence placed before the public so far confirms zero Zimmerman's version and tends to exonerate him.