(i) Martin suffocated Zimmerman by placing his hand over Zimmerman's bloody mouth and nose; and
(ii) Martin reached for and grabbed Zimmerman's gun. In reality, Martin's hands had ZERO blood from Zimmerman on them, which means that it is literally impossible for him to have put his hands over Zimmerman's blood-covered mouth or nose.
Likewise, there was no Martin DNA on Zimmerman's gun, therefore it is literally impossible for Martin to have grabbed the gun. These are just 2 of several incontrovertible facts that tend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was not warranted here.
Time to bust your bubble...
How about he has his hands on his mouth before he was bloody when he first had him pulled down. Covered his mouth and zimerman start fighting back and he then fought him M M A style which could mean forarms elbows even knees ect while on top of him.
This was reported by witnesses. So the order that things happened does matter because of twisting like this by lawyers?
and you don't have to touch my gun to say you were going for it. If you are reaching towards my back pocket to take my wallet to rob me that doesn't mean you ever got it before I resist and blocked you first.
and all this talk about Zimmerman following is a lame defence. Martin
had a cell phone if he was in danger or feared for his life before the conflict he could of used it to call police
like Zimmerman did.Funny how everyone keeps saying that Zimmerman was hunting Martin down, but he never walked around with his weapon out hunting his so called prey now did he?
