07-09-2013, 05:39 PM
(07-09-2013, 05:24 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(07-09-2013, 04:08 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: If I were on the jury, and it could be established 100% that either GZ or T threw the first punch, it would go a long way toward a conviction or an acquittal.
100%?
And you call me a moron!
Good luck hitting that percentage point.
The defense can concede that tubbie was the initial aggressor (pursuit).
They can then turnaround and claim Skittles got the upper-hand and put tubbie in fear for his life and was prevented from escaping 'cuz Skittles was riding him cowgirl style.
Now . . . sell it to the jury.
Ceding the initial aggressor point will not necessarily erase the visceral feeling of injustice.
Yeah, sport . . . the initial aggressor is the lynchpin for this case.
Yeah, 100%.
As in, an eyewitness' testimony. If they'd been fortunate enough to have had one.
So, spin it however you'd like.
If it was proven GZ was the initial aggressor and then feared for his life (enough to justify homicide), you'd have a hard time convincing the jury of that.
And, I agree with you about the feelings of injustice EVEN if it's a given that Trayvon initiated the altercation.
Most on T's side believe that G had it coming just because he was following/profiling him.
There's no real happy ending for Z here.