...Forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds who has written and co-authored several articles and a book on the subject, said the single shot that killed the Florida teen passed through Martin's clothing as it hung 2-4 inches from his skin, indicating that Martin was over Zimmerman and leaning forward.
"If you’re lying on your back, the clothing is going to be against your chest," Di Maio testified. "So the fact that we know the clothing was 2 to 4 inches away is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting."...
But since we're guessing, I'll conclude that according to Robert Snow, Zimmerman should have just called him the "N" word a few times to egg him on and then shot him in cold blood
What does either man's height have to do with who was on top?
What puzzles me is why the shooting had to happen at all?
According to the 911 call, zimmerman was following Trayvon from a considerable distance.
Why not just stay in the shadows and wait for the police since he had called them?
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention. The prosecution's own witnesses have testified that "Traybone" was almost home, but turned around to confront Zimmerman.
If Martin, who was much taller than Zimmerman, were standing the bullet would have been at a different angle as opposed to being in the prone position on top while he was beating Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
I haven't seen anywhere that anybody disputed that Trayvon wasn't over Zimmerman. None of the reports have mentioned him being shot while standing so either man's height is irrelevant.
The relevance would be whether he was in close proximity over him when shot or on his back in close proximity when shot.
Again in accordance with SYG, Trayvon Martin had the right to do so. The issue with the law seems to be when does the person pursuing after being confronted with force have the right to use force, or at what point does he possibly become the victim?
Again, I don't know of any reports where anyone has disputed that they were in close proximity. If they were fighting, why wouldn't they be in close proximity?
Could you please cite that portion of the law for me? You know, the part that tells us that "Traybone" can be almost all the way home, decide to turn around and confront Zimmerman and pound his head against the pavement?
According to the prosecution's own witnesses, "Traybone" was almost all the way home and out of danger, but chose to turn around, go back and confront Zimmerman. How does that make him the victim?
Make up your mind. First, you said:
Now, you're saying you haven't seen anybody dispute that they were in close proximity?
Moral of the story: Cowards with guns out to prove their "manhood" shouldn't start fights, even with skinny teenagers that they greatly outweigh and think they have an advantage on, because they are still the kind of punk that becomes a menacing danger to society.
;)
Yer reachin'. Guys, the long and the short of it is, Trayvon was trespassing, casing the joint, had drugs in his system, got belligerent then got shot.
I have thought for some time that if Zimmerman is found not guilty, there will be riots.
Some of the logic displayed in this and the other thread about the prosecutor reinforces the notion.
I get the impression that some here would not too strongly oppose a lynching.
And not to right this wrong only.