What the rev is saying makes a whole lot of sense to a lot of folks. Basically Zimmerman’s story doesn’t add up because the man who killed Trayvon Martin didn’t use his “MMA/Mixed Martial Arts” training to fight back against the 17-year-old instead of pulling out his gun and shooting him.
“If he was raining blows, MMA-style, you think there would be some physical evidence of that on his fists,” Sharpton said about Trayvon, hypothetically. “Second, it was testified that Zimmerman had MMA training. If Zimmerman had MMA training and there was an MMA attack going on, why didn’t he use his MMA training to defend himself?”
Hmm, yeah, that is an excellent question, Rev. Wonder what Zimmerman’s answer would be?
Sharpton’s comments come after Zimmerman’s neighbor, Jonathan Good, took the stand and said that he saw a serious fight occur outside his house before the shooting. Good said that he saw Zimmerman on the ground while Martin hit him “MMA” style.
Earlier last week Rev. Sharpton – who’s being criticized as a member of the media for being partial – made a similar statement saying that Zimmerman should have been able to use his martial arts training instead of his gun:
“You’re telling me you’re a watchmen that was training in martial arts, knew you had a gun, and you couldn’t’ do anything but shoot to kill this guy – a 17-year-old kid can come and hit you two or three times and the only thing you can do is try to kill him? What happened to your martial arts training?”
Here’s a video about Good’s testimony:
Here is Rev. Al picking holes in Good’s testimony and throws hints to the prosecution team: