I find it sadly ironic that you accuse me of holding "unchallengable dogma that Martin didn't strike first," when your comment clearly showed you believe he did strike first despite the fact that, at the very least, there's no evidence for either of our theories. So if you really did believe this was "a matter of evidence at law," you'd be agnostic.
Of course, all the evidence we do have, including: The fact that he was a 17-year-old kid with skittles and iced tea, testimony from everyone else on the scene, the fact that Zimmerman shows no signs of being injured in the police video, etc., supports my view. The only evidence that supports your view is...Zimmerman's testimony. Congrats.
Oops, looks like I broke my promise not to debate this. Oh well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Victims
Date: 2012-04-10 02:22 am (UTC)Of course, all the evidence we do have, including: The fact that he was a 17-year-old kid with skittles and iced tea, testimony from everyone else on the scene, the fact that Zimmerman shows no signs of being injured in the police video, etc., supports my view. The only evidence that supports your view is...Zimmerman's testimony. Congrats.
Oops, looks like I broke my promise not to debate this. Oh well.