Replies

OUTSTANDING! You get it sir/ma’am.

“Anyone with any brains left would have to assume that if he lost consciousness, then the guy who was beating his head against the concrete would be more than happy to finish him off with the gun after he lost consciousness. There is also evidence that Mr. Martin had told Zimmerman that he was going to “die tonight”.

And this is exactly the argument the defense attorney should introduce.

“Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, my client, under Florida Statutory law, had every right to carry a firearm, was carrying it in accordance with law, and because of the vicious assault by the decedant Trayvon Martin, my client was losing consciousness. My client was very congnizant that if he lost consciousness, he was armed with a firearm and would be at the COMPLETE MERCY OF HIS ASSAILANT. He had no choice but to save his own life. Yes, he shot Trayvon Martin, not to take his life, but to stop Trayvons violent and FELONIOUS assault against him. Remember, he only fired once, and had the opportunity to fire multiple times, which would have almost certainly ensured the death of Martin, but he only fired ONCE. Martin died as a tragic, but unintended result of being shot ONCE and as a result of my client trying to save his own life.”

“Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, my client, under Florida Statutory law, had every right to carry a firearm, was carrying it in accordance with law, and because of the vicious assault by the decedent Trayvon Martin, my client was losing consciousness. My client was very cognizant that if he lost consciousness, he was armed with a firearm and would be at the COMPLETE MERCY OF HIS ASSAILANT. He had no choice but to save his own life. Yes, he shot Trayvon Martin, not to take his life, but to stop Trayvons violent and FELONIOUS assault against him. Remember, he only fired once, and had the opportunity to fire multiple times, which would have almost certainly ensured the death of Martin, but he only fired ONCE. Martin died as a tragic, but unintended result of being shot ONCE and as a result of my client trying to save his own life.”

Excellent argument.But you've gotta know that an "OJ II" jury won't hear a word of it,just as surely as the original OJ jury didn't hear one word of the DNA evidence.