(BrightCitizen.com) Some are complaining about the result of the George Zimmerman trial. Others think that it is the result of a jury’s review of the case and are glad to see it off the national news scene every day. Yet others see it as a great distraction from Barak Obama’s scandals and abuse of power.
If you are not sure about the situation, you may want to know the facts. Here are a few things you should know courtesy of www.dlas.org.
|Please Note: This survey focuses specifically on some of the most underreported (or misreported) facts in this case — facts that challenge many of the preconceptions created by the news media’s coverage of this topic. It is not meant to be a balanced or comprehensive list of all the evidence. It does not cover the well-known facts and is not a scientific poll of any kind. Its purpose is to highlight the facts you probably didn’t know if you are convinced the Zimmerman verdict was wrong — facts that were ignored or widely misreported because they contradicted the story many in the news media wanted to tell.
Here’s some quick background:
The primary issue in the Zimmerman Trial was whether there was enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman may have legitimately acted in self-defense. During the trial, it wasn’t necessary for the defense team to absolutely prove that Zimmerman acted in self-defense — just that there was enough evidence (or lack of contrary evidence) to believe it was reasonably possible.
Zimmerman’s defense claim is basically this:
Zimmerman was in his car when he spotted Trayvon Martin acting strange (wandering in the rain and staring at the houses), so he called the police. After seeing Zimmerman in his car, Martin started running off down the walkway between some of the buildings. Zimmerman then got out of his car but lost sight of Martin after a few moments. He continued in the same direction as Martin for a few hundred feet either to try to see where Martin went or to check the street name to give an address to the police (or both).
Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin, but since the dispatcher advised him not to continue following, he started walking back to meet the police. Martin then approached him from behind and said “Yo, you got a problem?” Zimmerman said “No” and picked up his phone to call the police. Martin then said “Well, you do now” and punched Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman was knocked to the ground while Martin got on top of him and started hitting him and bashing his head into the ground. Zimmerman says that when Martin saw his gun he tried to grab it saying “You’re going to die tonight, motherf***er” so he only fired the gun in self-defense, believing his life was in danger.
If that version of events was true, then Zimmerman had a legitimate self-defense claim. Martin would not have been justified in attacking him because he could not have reasonably thought he was being threatened by a guy walking back to his car, especially after he responded with “No” when Martin asked “You got a problem?”
If, however, Zimmerman lied about what happened and had actually confronted Martin and attacked him first (or intentionally tried to provoke him into fighting), he could not legitimately claim self-defense.
read on here.