Fox News Columnist: Trayvon Martin Testimony Wouldn't Change Anything

The Faux News foolery knows no boundaries….

Fox News Columnist Says Trayvon Martin’s Testimony Wouldn’t Change Anything

These fools over at Faux News just never quit. In their latest round of “WTF?” commentary, a Fox News columnist recently wrote an op-ed piece on why he thinks that he even if Trayvon Martin were alive to testify on his own behalf, it wouldn’t make a difference in the case.

Check out few excerpts below:

via Fox News

In the days since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a common claim has been: “we will never know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin since the only person who knows the truth and is still alive is Zimmerman.”

But this statement is not accurate. The closing arguments in Zimmerman’s case start today. And the truth is, we know a lot about what happened on that fateful night. Trayvon Martin’s testimony, could he have spoken, wouldn’t changed anything.

For those who have watched the trial, ask yourself: is there even one piece of convincing evidence that Zimmerman did not act to defend himself from a threat of “imminent death or great bodily harm”?

There was no convincing evidence to support the charges against Zimmerman.

If both Zimmerman and Martin had both been white or if Zimmerman had been darker skinned, this case would never have gotten to court.

The debate between the experts was over how severe Zimmerman’s wounds were.

After examining photos of Zimmerman immediately after the attack, Jacksonville medical examiner, Valerie Rao, claimed that they were “insignificant,” that there was “a chance” that the number of blows Zimmerman suffered could range from just one to more than a half dozen. She wouldn’t say what the maximum number could be.

If Martin had been alive today, what could his testimony have added to any of this?  Could he have explained away the angle of the bullet?

With Zimmerman’s broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head, would it have mattered if Martin had told the court that he really hadn’t hit Zimmerman that hard?

The prosecution never provided any evidence that Zimmerman continued following Martin after the 911 operator suggested that he stop doing so.

Suppose Martin could testify that Zimmerman had continued to follow him, would that have mattered?

No, because even if Martin had indeed been followed, it wouldn’t have justified Martin punching Zimmerman’s nose, pinning him down and repeatedly hitting him and slamming his head into the concrete.

This is some of the dumbest, most delusional bullish we’ve heard to date from people trying to defend this murderer and justify his killing of an unarmed, unthreatening, 17-year-old who was minding his own business while walking home from the store until he was FORCED to defend himself.

The big, bright, glaring, undisputable bottom line in this situation that the defense so conveniently continues to skip over, is that Trayvon was not harming himself, Zimmerman or anyone around him when he was approached by a strange man who was not a police officer that had been following him for an extended amount of time without just cause. So Trayvon did what ANY person, black, white, male or female would have done in the situation, which was defend himself, and he lost his life as a result.

Additionally, are we the only ones confused as to how Zimmerman can even claim “self-defense” as justification for murder if HE was the aggressor?

What do you think about this bogus Fox News contributor theory, Bossip fam?