Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh
actually it is a critical fact, so critical that zim declined to invoke the stand your ground statute as his defense. Stand your ground requires that the person defending himself did not initiate the conflict. Hence Zim stayed off that law, which wouldve applied directly to this case had martin actually caused the confrontation.
I'm leaving this thread now & not coming back. congrats to the winners.
 |
It is about what can and can't be proven. He would have to prove he did not initiate the conflict or do life in prison. IF there were slam dunk facts to prove that, that would be a different story and a different defense.
He was never expected to take the stand.
There are only downsides to him taking the stand and getting ripped apart by a skilled, well prepared prosecutor. It's not about explanations or facts, its about credibility... the prosecutor would just hammer him until he started stuttering and stammering and questioning himself and eventually getting confused and contradicting himself as would happen with anyone.
Thats like saying "Bob refuses to fight George st Pierre in the cage, so that proves Bob is lying about his 3 weeks of MMA training back home in Pickleshit Indiana"