Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
That simply isn't true. Martin's friend for example who we know was on the phone provided evidence. You may dissmiss her testimony as not credible but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist


I could provide you testimony from someone who says the moon is made of cheese. By virtue of the fact that it exists, does it somehow come close to compromising physical evidence against it? The testimony had to corroborate the physical evidence that could be accounted for. It didn't.

And you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that, had he been the one to attack Martin, he would have pulled out his gun in the first place before letting things escalate to a grapple.

 Quote:
That is a problem when you kill a kid who had no motive to attack you.


Your favorite witness offered a motive when she said he described how he was being spooked by a "creepy ass cracker". Or are you going to be selective with her testimony?