George Zimmerman

[Slartibartfast]

I get the "somewhere" part but not the fingernails part. The lack of DNA on Martin's clothing seems to be the result of improper handling by police. (Wet clothing not dried before being bagged (and I think being bagged in plastic), allowing mildew to develop that interferes with DNA collection.)

Zimmerman said Martin bashed his head into the concrete multiple times. Zimmerman doesn't have any hair for someone to have grabbed onto so he would have had to have grabbed his head in order to do that. If Martin had been holding his head and bashing it as described by Zimmerman then there would have been DNA on his hands.

[Laurie4b]

Zimmerman said Martin bashed his head into the concrete multiple times. Zimmerman doesn't have any hair for someone to have grabbed onto so he would have had to have grabbed his head in order to do that. If Martin had been holding his head and bashing it as described by Zimmerman then there would have been DNA on his hands.

Having never done that before :ohmy: , I was thinking you would grab someone by the shoulders...

[Slartibartfast]

Having never done that before :ohmy: , I was thinking you would grab someone by the shoulders...

He used the word, "slam" and I don't think that could have happened if one was holding the shoulders. There was not significant damage to Martin's hands so it is unlikely the slamming was a result of punching and there was not bruising or damage to Zimmerman's neck so he couldn't have been holding him by the neck (which would still result in DNA on the hands)

 

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have to disprove Zimmerman's story. Since Zimmerman said his head was slammed many times it is significant that there was not DNA on the hands.

[unfrumpable.]

Anyone have any thoughts on the position of the body? Martin was face down with his arms tucked under him. If he is straddling GZ would the gunshot have sent him backwards? Then he would have been face up right? If he slumped over GZ then GZ would have had to move him to get out from under him. Wouldn't he have rolled him off? Then he would still be face up. How did he get face down? Was Martin's blood on GZ clothes?

I believe that GZ rolled TM over on his stomach and attempted to pin him or put his arms behind his back. I'd have to go read the article again, but a Google search should turn up the info you're looking for. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Zimmerman said Martin bashed his head into the concrete multiple times. Zimmerman doesn't have any hair for someone to have grabbed onto so he would have had to have grabbed his head in order to do that. If Martin had been holding his head and bashing it as described by Zimmerman then there would have been DNA on his hands.

Exactly. If you are repeatedly punching someone in the face (25-30 times, according to Zimmerman) and holding their head while bashing it against the sidewalk with enough force to be life-threatening, then you should have bruised knuckles, blood on your hands and under your fingernails, etc. A long history of forensics shows this is true. But, there is none of that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They also did not bag Martin's hands to preserve the evidence. If you read the testimony from the forensics experts, they admit that the lack of DNA on the hands is not conclusive. I believe the defense may be introducing testimony next week that the test used by the state to detect DNA is not as accurate/sensitive as what is used by other agencies, including the Florida state lefel investigators.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For those following the case...

--the state mangled the forensics badly. Martin's body remained in the rain for 2-3 hours, the blanket covering the body was not kept as evidence (could have picked up traces of DNA or blood), the hands were not bagged (against protocol), and an investigator attempted to fingerprint the body at the scene in the rain ( against protocol/could have destroyed evidence). The clothing was also not dried before being bagged as evidence (against protocol).

[SKL]

So basically I should be allowed to turn around and beat the crap out of anyone who might seem to be following me.

 

Since when is following a person at a distance on a public road a crime?

[SKL]

Applying the principal that it's a duty to try to get away rather than apply deadly force, why isn't anyone arguing that Martin should have tried to get away instead of confronting Zimmerman?

 

I dunno.  I don't like the way people are using emotions to try this case.  The whole "as if a 17-year-old "boy" really tried to hurt someone."  Please.  So nobody has ever heard of a 17yo male committing assault / attempted murder / murder?  Oh and when did it become OK to call a grown black male "boy"?  This is manipulation.  I wasn't there, unfortunately Martin isn't around to testify, and who knows what really happened - but the more I see this kind of manipulation, the more I'm inclined to have sympathy for the other side.  The fact is that sometimes self defense is necessary.  Just because the guy with the gun was Peruvian instead of AA does not take away a valid defense.

[WishboneDawn]

NM

[poppy]

Applying the principal that it's a duty to try to get away rather than apply deadly force, why isn't anyone arguing that Martin should have tried to get away instead of confronting Zimmerman?

Even if Martin started the physical fight, there is no reason to think Martin did so in an attempt to kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman says he shot Martin because he was afraid Martin would reach for his gun. In other words, it was escalated to deadly force because of the firearm.

[catz]

And according to the 911 transcript, GZ says himself TM tried to run from him.

---------–---------

 

Zimmerman

 

Okay. These (expletive) they always get away. Yep. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

 

Dispatcher

 

So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

 

Zimmerman

 

No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. (expletive) he's running.

 

Dispatcher

 

He's running? Which way is he running?

 

Zimmerman

 

Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

[MyThreeSons]

On one of the major network news shows last night, the reporter checking in with the anchor said that he will be very surprised if there is a conviction. He says the state hasn't disproved Zimmerman's self defense claim.

[Mama Geek]

I live close to Sanford. They are preparing for riots when Zimmerman in acquitted.

[Scarlett]

On one of the major network news shows last night, the reporter checking in with the anchor said that he will be very surprised if there is a conviction. He says the state hasn't disproved Zimmerman's self defense claim.

I tend to agree there won't be a conviction. Hard to disproove self defense when the only other person who knows the truth is dead.

[Scarlett]

Has anyone heard if that animated reenactment is going to be allowed in? I was in and out of the room while it was going on yesterday and it seemed like the judge was leaning against allowing it.

[unsinkable]

Has anyone heard if that animated reenactment is going to be allowed in? I was in and out of the room while it was going on yesterday and it seemed like the judge was leaning against allowing it.

Never mind. I was half listening to the news and thought there was a ruling but I'm wrong.

 

Carry on.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Has anyone heard if that animated reenactment is going to be allowed in? I was in and out of the room while it was going on yesterday and it seemed like the judge was leaning against allowing it.

 

My guess would be no, but based on how badly the judge mangled the ruling about not allowing Martin's text messages, anything is possible.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And according to the 911 transcript, GZ says himself TM tried to run from him.

---------–---------

 

Zimmerman

 

Okay. These (expletive) they always get away. Yep. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

 

Dispatcher

 

So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

 

Zimmerman

 

No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. (expletive) he's running.

 

Dispatcher

 

He's running? Which way is he running?

 

Zimmerman

 

Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

 

Martin also obviously stopped running and turned back to confront Zimmerman based on where they met.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Even if Martin started the physical fight, there is no reason to think Martin did so in an attempt to kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman says he shot Martin because he was afraid Martin would reach for his gun. In other words, it was escalated to deadly force because of the firearm.

 

Except if you are Zimmerman and you are pinned down being struck by someone you don't know, then you could reasonably believe your life was in danger.

.

.

.

Oh look.  We just met the standard for self defense!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I tend to agree there won't be a conviction. Hard to disproove self defense when the only other person who knows the truth is dead.

 

You do realize this isn't that unusual of a situation in self defense claims, right?

[Scarlett]

You do realize this isn't that unusual of a situation in self defense claims, right?

Sure. Doesn't change how crazy it is. Doesn't change the fact that if GZ wasn't carrying a gun, getting out of the safety of his car and chasing after what he believed to be a dangerous person, no one would be dead.

[poppy]

Except if you are Zimmerman and you are pinned down being struck by someone you don't know, then you could reasonably believe your life was in danger.

.

.

.

Oh look.  We just met the standard for self defense!

Obviously, I was replying to the poster who implied Martin chose to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The man who brought a gun with a bullet in the chamber ready to shoot was the one who made this a fatal encounter.

 

Your scenario does not meet the standard for self defense. If you hit me, then I wrestle you to the ground, then you shoot me, that is not self defense.

[QueenCat]

I live close to Sanford. They are preparing for riots when Zimmerman in acquitted.

 

They should be protesting an acquittal, not rioting.... we should be outraged if that man gets off for murdering TM.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Obviously, I was replying to the poster who implied Martin chose to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The man who brought a gun with a bullet in the chamber ready to shoot was the one who made this a fatal encounter.

 

Your scenario does not meet the standard for self defense. If you hit me, then I wrestle you to the ground, then you shoot me, that is not self defense.

 

You changed my scenario by taking out "pinned to the ground" and "being struck".  Nice try though.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sure. Doesn't change how crazy it is. Doesn't change the fact that if GZ wasn't carrying a gun, getting out of the safety of his car and chasing after what he believed to be a dangerous person, no one would be dead.

 

Of course you again are basing this on something that has yet to be proved - that Zimmerman "chased" after Martin after he told the dispatcher "Okay".  *IF* Zimmerman's version is true, no one would be dead if Martin had not doubled back to confront/assault GC, correct?

 

I am getting a bit of a chuckle out of your irritation with self defense laws.  Should we just rewrite them to say that you can't claim self defense unless there is a witness?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They should be.... we should be outraged if that man gets off for murdering TM.

 

Why should people be outraged if there is not enough evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt?

[QueenCat]

Why should people be outraged if there is not enough evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

I believe there is enough evidence. Based on what you've written throughout this thread, I know we won't agree on the matter. Not going to get in a tit for tat conversation about it.

[poppy]

You changed my scenario by taking out "pinned to the ground" and "being struck".  Nice try though.

OK I will add those words then.

 

If you hit me, then I pin you down and strike you, and then you shoot me, it's still not self defense. Even if you reasonably feel your life is in danger.

 

Which, the man had abraision on his scalp and a broken nose. Nothing remotely life threatening. Not remotely.

 

If belief that your life is in danger is the only criteria for self defense, then Trayvon Martin could have killed George Zimmerman for chasing him with a gun.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OK I will add those words then.

 

If you hit me, then I pin you down and strike you, and then you shoot me, it's still not self defense. Even if you reasonably feel your life is in danger.

 

Which, the man had abraision on his scalp and a broken nose. Nothing remotely life threatening.

 

You are simply wrong.  Wrong to the point where I cannot even begin to fathom why you think you are right.

 

 

Florida self defense statute:

 

 

776.012  Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2)  Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

If belief that your life is in danger is the only criteria for self defense, then Trayvon Martin could have killed George Zimmerman for chasing him with a gun.

 

Read the statute.  The word "reasonable" is very important to understanding the law.

 

Let's say Martin survived, and even flip the script and say he somehow kills Zimmerman.  Martin would have an interesting case for self defense based on Zimmerman having a gun.  However, if he incapacitated Zimmerman and continued to beat him, self defense would no longer apply as he would not have a reasonable fear of death at that point.  If there were no witnesses, Martin wrestles the gun away, and shoots Zimmerman?  I believe he would have a valid claim. 

 

But here is the key point to what really happened - there is no evidence (no = none) that Zimmerman chased Martin with his gun unholstered OR actual evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin after he told the dispatcher "okay".  You may believe that is what happened, but anyone fllowing the trial closely will tell you the state has never come close to proving either of those allegations.  The prosecution has actually resorted to a lot of "could have..." scenarios in cross examination which is an odd strategy for the side that has to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Scarlett]

Of course you again are basing this on something that has yet to be proved - that Zimmerman "chased" after Martin after he told the dispatcher "Okay". *IF* Zimmerman's version is true, no one would be dead if Martin had not doubled back to confront/assault GC, correct?

 

I am getting a bit of a chuckle out of your irritation with self defense laws. Should we just rewrite them to say that you can't claim self defense unless there is a witness?

He did chase after him. If you don't like the word chase, lets use another. Followed. Pursued. Why does it matter if he continued chasing/following/ pursuing/ or not after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. He clearly had started and TM knew it and confronted him. If GZ had stayed in his car TM would have had no reason to confront him.

 

As far as how I feel about laws.....I don't feel irritated as much as jaded. People get away legally with crimes all of the time. OJ. Casey Anthony.

[Scarlett]

Read the statute. The word "reasonable" is very important to understanding the law.

 

Let's say Martin survived, and even flip the script and say he somehow kills Zimmerman. Martin would have an interesting case for self defense based on Zimmerman having a gun. However, if he incapacitated Zimmerman and continued to beat him, self defense would no longer apply as he would not have a reasonable fear of death at that point. If there were no witnesses, Martin wrestles the gun away, and shoots Zimmerman? I believe he would have a valid claim.

 

But here is the key point to what really happened - there is no evidence (no = none) that Zimmerman chased Martin with his gun unholstered OR actual evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Martin after he told the dispatcher "okay". You may believe that is what happened, but anyone fllowing the trial closely will tell you the state has never come close to proving either of those allegations. The prosecution has actually resorted to a lot of "could have..." scenarios in cross examination which is an odd strategy for the side that has to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

You are very focused on the law.....maybe you are an attorney, I don't know. There is more than just the law going on in this discussion....I am saying that the law may be on the side of GZ but in no way does that prove to me that he acted reasonably at all that night. I think he is a wanna be cop and a man that liked to play the big shot and at the same time a very scared man who felt that he needed a gun for protection just to drive around his neighborhood looking for would be thieves.

 

Everything that happened that night could have been avoided. And it started with GZ.

[poppy]

There is exactly as much evidence that Zimmerman did not chase Martin as there is that Martin ambushed Zimmerman and screaming a death threat.

 

A witness says that Zimmerman struck first. Another witness says that Martin ended up on top. I believe both of those things to be true.

[SKL]

The fact is that in this country, the defendant is always at an advantage because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  That's not racist.  It would benefit Martin if he were in court as well.  We all know there are aggressors of all colors who walk because the state's burden of proof is not met.  Our society has decided that it would be worse to punish a lot of innocent people.  It may suck in a specific case, but on balance we've decided we prefer this.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is exactly as much evidence that Zimmerman did not chase Martin as there is that Martin ambushed Zimmerman and screaming a death threat.

 

A witness says that Zimmerman struck first. Another witness says that Martin ended up on top. I believe both of those things to be true.

 

Actually, there isn't.  The statements from Zimmerman to the police were entered into evidence by the prosecution.  You may believe he is lying, but those statements ARE evidence.  There has been NO evidence presented that Zimmerman "chased" Martin after the "okay".

 

For the record, the "witness" you claim says Zimmerman struck first was audio only and did not actuallly see the assault.  The same witness also gave a statement that contradicts her testimony, and the portion you refer to was only added when she was in a room with Martin's mother and attorneys.

 

However, even if we grant that Zimmerman struck first, Zimmerman still has a valid self defense claim based on being pinned down by Martin.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He did chase after him. If you don't like the word chase, lets use another. Followed. Pursued. Why does it matter if he continued chasing/following/ pursuing/ or not after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. He clearly had started and TM knew it and confronted him. If GZ had stayed in his car TM would have had no reason to confront him.

 

As far as how I feel about laws.....I don't feel irritated as much as jaded. People get away legally with crimes all of the time. OJ. Casey Anthony.

 

Again, I find it interesting you put more burden on Zimmerman for not satying in the car (legal act) than on Martin for assaulting someone (illegal act).

 

Also, to the bolded, there has been no evidence provided by the state that Zimmerman did so after he said "okay".  His statement on what he did at that point (again, entered by the prosecution as evidence) is the only evidence (as thin and self serving as it is) on what Zimmerman did during the 2 minute gap.

 

Have you actually looked at the map of where this incident occurred?  Just curious.

[unsinkable]

You are very focused on the law.....maybe you are an attorney, I don't know. There is more than just the law going on in this discussion....I am saying that the law may be on the side of GZ but in no way does that prove to me that he acted reasonably at all that night. I think he is a wanna be cop and a man that liked to play the big shot and at the same time a very scared man who felt that he needed a gun for protection just to drive around his neighborhood looking for would be thieves.

 

Everything that happened that night could have been avoided. And it started with GZ.

That's the thing...his moral culpability and his legal culpability.

 

I think he is morally culpable for Travon's death.

 

Legally, in FL, I'm not sure the prosecution has made their case.

[Scarlett]

Again, I find it interesting you put more burden on Zimmerman for engaging in a legal act (not staying in the car" than on Martin for assaulting someone (illegal act).

And again you are hyper focused on the technicalities of the law....the law can't cover all the ramifications of our actions. Whether the law will convict him or not GZ bears some responsibility for TM being dead.

[Scarlett]

Again, I find it interesting you put more burden on Zimmerman for not satying in the car (legal act) than on Martin for assaulting someone (illegal act).

 

Also, to the bolded, there has been no evidence provided by the state that Zimmerman did so after he said "okay". His statement on what he did at that point (again, entered by the prosecution as evidence) is the only evidence (as thin and self serving as it is) on what Zimmerman did during the 2 minute gap.

 

Have you actually looked at the map of where this incident occurred? Just curious.

Not closely. I've mostly listened to it as I am doing other things. Still not getting why it makes a difference when/ if GZ stopped following TM after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not closely. I've mostly listened to it as I am doing other things. Still not getting why it makes a difference when/ if GZ stopped following TM after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that.

 

Um....because that goes agains the narrative that you and others keep presenting.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And again you are hyper focused on the technicalities of the law....the law can't cover all the ramifications of our actions. Whether the law will convict him or not GZ bears some responsibility for TM being dead.

 

I certainly agree with that.  I also believe Martin has some culpability in what transpired, and his actions were not (based on the evidence) as innocent as what has been presented through the media.

[Scarlett]

I certainly agree with that. I also believe Martin has some culpability in what transpired, and his actions were not (based on the evidence) as innocent as what has been presented through the media.

Since the stars have aligned and we found a point of agreement I am going to stop posting for a while. ;)

[poppy]

Actually, there isn't. The statements from Zimmerman to the police were entered into evidence by the prosecution. You may believe he is lying, but those statements ARE evidence. There has been NO evidence presented that Zimmerman "chased" Martin after the "okay".

 

For the record, the "witness" you claim says Zimmerman struck first was audio only and did not actuallly see the assault. The same witness also gave a statement that contradicts her testimony, and the portion you refer to was only added when she was in a room with Martin's mother and attorneys.

 

However, even if we grant that Zimmerman struck first, Zimmerman still has a valid self defense claim based on being pinned down by Martin.

I find it interesting that you take Zimmerman's testimony as completely credible despite the contradictions.

 

The woman who was on the phone with Martin is a witness, legally. Not a "witness".

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I find it interesting that you take Zimmerman's testimony as completely credible despite the contradictions.

 

The woman who was on the phone with Martin is a witness, legally. Not a "witness".

 

She isn't an eyewitness and could not testify directly as to who started the altercation. 

 

I find it interesting that you ignore that Detective Serino stated under oath that he believed Zimmerman's testimony was "credible".  He and the other investigator also testified that some inconsistencies are to be expected.

[poppy]

Credible just means plausible. The testimony that someone heard Martin cry 'get off get off!' is also credible.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Credible just means plausible. The testimony that someone heard Martin cry 'get off get off!' is also credible.

 

 

 

The testimony from that witness is less useful though as 1.) she changed her statement and added something significant, 2.) she was possibly influenced by the state allowing outside parties to be present, and 3.) she actually was not at the scene and cannot testify directly to events.

 

Also, I believe you and Mrs. Mungo went on about the lack of bruising on Martin's hands.  Did you pay attention to this from the forensic pathologist who testified yesterday?

 

Asked whether the lack of bruising on Mr. Martin’s knuckles was significant, Dr. Di Maio said that knuckles can bruise or not bruise depending on what they hit. Dr. Di Maio also said that bruising can sometimes be found inside the hand, but the doctor who performed the autopsy did not check.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/teenager-was-over-zimmerman-as-he-was-shot-expert-says.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

[poppy]

I do not think her testimony is less useful than the guy on trial, who has more incentive than anyone else to paint himself in the best possible light.

 

I just want to be clear, though, that I feel badly for George Zimmerman. I am sure he didn't set out to kill anyone. On his first 911 call, he sounds so soft spoken and reasonable. Just a guy thinking he was doing the right thing. It is a tragedy for all involved. But he made some terrible judgements that led to a teen's death. Legally, I think he will be acquitted. Morally, it must be a great burden to bear for him.

 

I also think the handling of the evidence was shameful, for all parties. Justice may well not be served because of the police's failures. But, when the police screw up that badly, the defense SHOULD have an advantage, no question.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We aren't as far apart as you might believe.

 

I do agree Zimmerman screwed up royally, but I don't believe based on what I have seen he committed a crime. I also think (my impression only) that Zimmerman may not be...shall we say, the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

 

I also agree that this investigation looks a bit like the Keystone Cops at times. I can excuse the investigators a bit but the ME should have known better and (again only IMO) came across as very unprofessional.

[QueenCat]

Just saw that Zimmerman has declined to testify at the trial. His right, most certainly, but to me, it means he (or his attorneys) don't think he can hold up under the cross examination.