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.
Actually, when I first heard about this case, I assumed from what I'd heard that Zimmerman was a White Male suffering from the delusion that all Non-White Males are criminals and had shot the young man when he either tried to flee or verbally stand up for himself. In other words, I believed exactly what you did.
Then, I heard some more about the case. In particular, that Martin was behaving suspiciously; that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher; and most importantly that Zimmerman had already given up following Martin when Martin turned back and launched a serious and unprovoked physical attack on Zimmerman. Which, if true, rather makes a difference, doesn't it?
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.
How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else? The testimony varies: at least one eyewitness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman. As for the video, that was taken after Zimmerman had received medical attention and been cleaned up.
I'm not saying that the evidence makes it iron-clad that Martin started a fight for no good reason, but it certainly blows holes in the original story that Martin was just minding his own business when Zimmerman inexplicably shot him.
The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin
Actually, when I first heard about this case, I assumed from what I'd heard that Zimmerman was a White Male suffering from the delusion that all Non-White Males are criminals and had shot the young man when he either tried to flee or verbally stand up for himself. In other words, I believed exactly what you did.
Then, I heard some more about the case. In particular, that Martin was behaving suspiciously; that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher; and most importantly that Zimmerman had already given up following Martin when Martin turned back and launched a serious and unprovoked physical attack on Zimmerman. Which, if true, rather makes a difference, doesn't it?
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.
How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else? The testimony varies: at least one eyewitness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman. As for the video, that was taken after Zimmerman had received medical attention and been cleaned up.
I'm not saying that the evidence makes it iron-clad that Martin started a fight for no good reason, but it certainly blows holes in the original story that Martin was just minding his own business when Zimmerman inexplicably shot him.