What does where he was almost to have to do with the law?
It shows that he was not being stalked, but chose to confront Zimmerman.
The SYG law says that Trayvon had a right to use force to defend himself. And according to the girlfriend's testimony, he seemed to think Zimmerman was a threat.
Again, the prosecution's own witnesses, including both medical examiners, have testified that Martin was not defending himself, but was the aggressor.
In fact, the prosecution's "star witness", Rachel Jeantel, a close friend of "Traybone" who was on the phone with him at the time of the incident, testified under oath that not only did Martin state he was going to confront Zimmerman, but that when he did not call her back right away, she believed it was because he had gone to fight Zimmerman.
Think about what that means for a minute. Something in "Traybone's" character and past behavior was such that someone the prosecution described as a "close friend" found it reasonable to assume that he had gone to initiate a confrontation.
You seem to be very confident that you know better than the witnesses and investigators what happened that night. If you have evidence contrary to the
evidence that's been presented thus far, then you have a moral obligation to share it with the AG's office.
Otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself here.
Take it up with the law. It says he has the right to do exactly what he did.
Please cite the portion of the law, the specific statute, that says "Traybone" had the right to leave the relative safety of "his daddy fiancée house (sic)", turn around, attack Zimmerman, and repeatedly pound his head into the pavement.
