Just0Us0Two
Posts: 135
Joined: 6/3/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle In order to get a conviction, all they have to do is prove that Zimmerman provoked the fight, and that he had an opportunity to run away and didn't take it. John Good testified that he saw Zimmerman and Martin vertical before they ended up on the ground with Trayvon on top. Selma Mora testified she saw Zimmerman on top earlier. So, if Good and Mora are credible witnesses, then that proves Zimmerman had an opportunity to run away when he was on top or when they were both standing, and didn't take it. Because of that, and because he provoked the confrontation, he can't claim self defense. O'Mara while on cross established John Good misused 'vertical'. What he meant was they were both on the ground, with Trayvon perpendicular to George, on top. Selma didn't see George on top until after the shot. O'Mara had her demonstrate the run outside when she heard the shot. And just because you're "on top" doesn't mean you can run away, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're winning either. There's at least one technique it's known as the guard position in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and the MMA) I can think of that puts one fighter flat on their back, with their opponent above them, but maintains control of the upper-most opponent. Zimmerman would have known this position, but then again so would anyone who's watched a few UFC fights and has a supposed history as a street fighter. Even if you're not locked up in a guard position, it depends on how close you are, which way both fighters are facing, if you're standing or still on your knees, etc. The last thing you want to do is to try to turn and run and risk getting tripped to the ground. Close range, grappling fights are fast, dynamic affairs. You don't have time to make real decisions. You react, and react quickly, or you get hurt.
|