gkafantaris Wrote:
Jul 12, 2013 12:33 AM
Let’s accept Zimmerman’s version that Martin was a troublemaker, that he was up to no good when he spotted him, that Martin got into fights, that he had marijuana in his system, and that he was a 6.2 aggressive teen -- not a twelve year old helpless boy. This still leaves us with the burden of explaining those heart retching screams -- loud enough to be captured on the neighbor’s 911 call. Zimmerman said elsewhere that the screams are from him because he was being pummeled by the unexpectedly aggressive Martin. The jury certainly has sufficient evidence of Martin’s aggressiveness, even though Zimmerman did not testify or give us an opportunity to probe further. Yet, this being the case that we have, we ought to look further at what is reasonable -- how likely is that things happened the way Zimmerman says they did? Is it likely for a man to cry for help when he is on the ground with someone sitting on him and punching repeatedly? Might he be too busy dealing with this to have an opportunity to cry for help -- in that way that we hear it on the 911 call? Yet, he could have done just that afterwards, or in between bouts. The 911 recording we have, however, only captures the tail end of the fight. What we hear are not the ordinary screams of a man getting punched, pummeled or pounded. Rather, they are the pleas for help by someone who is not only in grave danger, but a danger that he knows and appreciates. Indeed, the cries are of such desperation that they pierce the coldest of hearts. Zimmerman says that it was he who was screaming and we want to believe him. We should give him the benefit of all reasonable doubt because our system of justice prefers that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent be found guilty. Moreover, Zimmerman’s version is plausible if Martin was prying the gun away from him. Indeed, let’s assume that Martin had grabbed the gun and was about to shoot Zimmerman. Does this fit with what we hear on the recorded 911 call? Does it fit with the lack of any physical evidence of Martin’s DNA on Zimmerman’s gun? There should have been some, even if Martin had just touched it, let alone grabbed it, or struggled for it. Indeed, we might expect that a struggle for control would have left a heavier DNA imprint. Yet, it left none. Still, let’s disregard this lack of Martin’s physical evidence on the gun and again give Zimmerman, the benefit of reasonable doubt -- the kind we give to our most important affairs. Is there anything else tha