ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 3: “WHO STARTED IT?”

One of the neighbors, I believe his name was ‘Good’, did just that. He was the guy who testified that TM was on top of GZ.

Which means there was no stopping the kid short of a bullet.

. . . at least, nothing the George Zimmerman had at his disposal . . .
John Good didn’t want to be prominent in the trial, for his own safety. And it’s possible that Mark O’Mara respected that. But absent that consideration, MO’M could, I would argue should have, argued in his summation that

the physical evidence (grass on Zimmerman’s back, and on Trayvon’s knees, not a mark on Trayvon at the time of Good’s inadequate intervention) demands the conclusion that Trayvon had the initiative throughout the fight.

That demands the conclusion that Trayvon initiated the altercation - and Zimmerman (and only he) did all the screaming for help.

The continuation of the beating after another adult man witnessed it and demanded that it stop crossed a line.

The departure of John Good to call 911 gave Zimmerman to understand that help would not be coming soon.

After the last scream something - the claimed discovery by Trayvon of Zimmerman’s gun perhaps, but something - precipitated the idea in Zimmerman’s mind that he had to draw and fire his gun.

By that time Trayvon had crossed the line between allowing Zimmerman to exercise restraint and driving Zimmerman to desperation.

No one - not the jurors and not the prosecutors, no one - has a right to second guess Zimmerman’s decision in that extremity.
George Zimmerman is not guilty by reason of self-defense. You must not convict him of murder, you must not convict him of a lesser included charge, you must not even convict him, were it possible, of spitting on the sidewalk. Self defense, in this instance not merely by benefit of a “reasonable doubt” but veritably proven - requires that the verdict be, “Not Guilty.”

As to any prosecution blather about what George Zimmerman really meant by his words on the NEN recording, consider the affect of the recording, which a mere text transcript cannot possibly do justice in matters of controversy. There is the famous public speaking example of the sentence,
“I never said he stole money.”
What does that mean? Does that mean,
”I never said he stole money,” or
”I never said he stole money,” or
”I never said he stole money,” or
”I never said he stole money” - or does it mean,
”I never said he stole money”?
You cannot tell from a transcript, and you certainly cannot tell from listening to a prosecutor deliberately putting the worst inflection he can on George Zimmerman’s words. To the extent that it matters to you, you can go to the horse’s mouth - the tapes where the prosecutors themselves heard the words. There you can listen to George Zimmerman’s own affect - and decide how it affects you.
But remember what it took for the Trayvon Martin described on the NEN call to turn into the corpse whose photo you have seen. Trayvon Martin did some things, and crossed some lines, to get there. He spent four minutes not leaving the scene of Zimmerman’s truck but planning his attack. He spent forty seconds brutally and mercilessly working Zimmerman over. And, whatever else he may or may not have done, he continued the crime after he had been witnessed performing it, and he continued after Zimmerman was left to know that he could not count on any outside help.
George Zimmerman pulled the trigger, and Trayvon Martin is dead - but Trayvon Martin himself is the reason that Trayvon Martin is dead. And will be, long after your verdict. George Zimmerman was not capable of doing anything other than what he did, and the only just verdict is, “Not Guilty."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.