Quote:
Originally Posted by eroticsexxx
Are you certain of your stance? Have you legally analysed the case from the 911 tapes and avoided the opposite side of the media blitz?
|
First off, the original 911 tapes that were available were edited.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2395089/
Second, the media as always have sensationalized the whole affair. The edited 911 calls are proof of this. The little information that is available is contradictory and up to interpretation.
The whole thing rests on whatever physical evidence exists of the alleged attack. The EMT's report on Zimmerman's injuries, stains on the back of his shirt/pants.
If there's no evidence that Zimmerman was attacked then yeah, he's gonna have a hell of a time getting away from manslaughter. Lack of evidence of an attack would destroy eyewitness testimony claiming that Treyvon was beating up Zimmerman.
If there's evidence that Zimmerman was attacked by Treyvon then he will have a good argument for self-defense. It would corroborate eyewitness testimony claiming Zimmernan defended himself.
On the other hand, if Zimmerman did attack Treyvon there should be evidence of it in his clothes, grass/dirt on his back. Again, physical evidence is needed.
That Zimmerman might have incited the attack is up to debate, and that's now up to the judge.
Another question is, why wasn't Zimmerman arrested the night of the shooting? Was it because the physical evidence of the attack was so overwhelming that the cops felt arresting him wasn't necessary, or because there was a conspiracy to let this incident slide?
Time will tell.