Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 20)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
And a third point... though I can read (and poorly write) cursive, I write in printed capital letters and have done so my entire life.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2013, 11:21 PM
 
Why did she sign something she could not read, let alone write? (Did Trayvon's mother write it?)

BTW what is "purple drank?"
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2013, 12:03 AM
 
Prescription cough syrup and soda.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2013, 07:52 AM
 
HLN talking head mentioned "arizona watermelon and skittles" as ingedients. That was what Trayvon purchased.
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM. )
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2013, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No. We don't know that. At what point did Ms. Jeantel testify that TM was outside his home and then "returned to Zimmerman"?
Video including this statement here. Actual statement at approximately 2:05 in the clip.
Jeantel; "I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his daddy's fiancee's house."

You wanna tell me how this shows a kid who was deathly afraid of his pursuer? Sounds to me like he was comforted enough with his proximity to his destination that he was going to finally get to the bottom of why GZ was following him. Which by the way, squares perfectly with GZ's own report given to the police just after the incident.

How do you figure? GZ stared at TM from his vehicle. TM walked away and then ran. GZ pursued TM. TM continued running and lost GZ. Eventually TM started walking fast because he was winded and he didn't see GZ anymore. TM continued talking to his friend. Then suddenly TM says "Oh shit ... the nigga is behind me!" Which sounds to me like GZ caught up with TM and startled him. So TM turns around and says "What you following me for?". Now here is the critical part. TM's friend says she heard GZ say "What are you doing around here?". One transcript claims she heard GZ say "What are you talking about?" (which if that's true then GZ was trying to front like he wasn't following TM). Regardless, GZ was already close enough for her to hear him speaking on the other end of a cell phone call. Then she says she immediately heard a bump and TM shouting "Get off! Get off!". There was no delay between any of these events in her testimony. They all proceeded one after the other. So this notion that somehow TM "returned" is quite fanciful. "Returned" where? "Returned" for what purpose?

Again, there is what is possible and there is what is probable. Sure it's possible that TM was afraid enough of what he described as a "creepy ass cracka" to take off running away from him ... but then minutes later he was aggressive enough to have "returned" somewhere to go and punch him in the face unprovoked. But sorry ... it just doesn't seem likely. As TM's friend said "That's real retarded, sir. That's real retarded to do that, sir. Why on earth—? Trayvon did not know him." ***

It has always been my position that it is more probable that GZ who A) followed TM in contravention of the 911 dispatcher's order not to, and B) muttered "F*cking punks! These assholes ... they always get away." ... was aggressive enough to essentially stalk TM through the complex until he caught up with him (so he wouldn't get away) ... and was not afraid to approach TM on the street because he was armed. Also, it is possible that GZ was the one screaming bloody murder on the 911 recording of the neighbor's call because he was being beaten to within an inch of his life ... and then moments later he is described by witnesses as essentially being calm, cool, and collected after having shot TM. Not animated. Not excited. Not in shock. Refused to be transported to the hospital. Nothing in his demeanor to indicate that mere moments ago he was supposedly in some sort of "life or death" struggle. It just doesn't seem very probable.

And of course, let's not overlook the fact that the autopsy and DNA reports show no forensic evidence tying GZ's minor injuries to TM. Just saying ...

DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries

OAW

*** - "Cultural translation" ... IOW you don't just roll up on someone like that in the streets that you don't know. Especially if you are by yourself and unarmed. That's a good way to catch a beat down or worse.
Based on your summation of events, sounds to me like GZ had plenty of opportunity to shoot TM or even draw his weapon and scare TM if that was his intent. He didn't. At no time during the confrontation in Jeantel's account of their phone conversation was a gun brought up. Not once. I can see why it's important to try to deny the overwhelming evidence of a physical altercation between GZ and TM such that GZ would get bloodied up because if it's true; if an armed GZ sustained multiple injuries at the hands of TM prior to drawing and firing his weapon, this demonstrates remarkable restraint for an armed aggressor and it was only in self-defense that the weapon was drawn and fired. Now we're supposed to believe that a frantic Zimmerman cut himself up within minutes of killing Trayvon so the police would have some evidence of an altercation yet denied any medical attention. In spite of the fact that no witness, of which have claimed they saw one get up from the other or vise-versa, was it ever mentioned that Zimmerman "started cutting himself" or left the scene to beat himself up a bit. When exactly was he to have done this and why did no one acknowledge such bizarre behavior of the murderer? It should also be noted, I've myself denied medical care even in cases where it was warranted so I'm not sure why that's such damning evidence. But all that aside -- I think if Zimmerman was trying to make a big to-do of his "fake" injuries, "having to go the hospital for treatment" would've supported his MO. Denying the medical attention doesn't really square with your logic here.
  • We've been told repeatedly how much larger and heavier GZ is than TM. Okay, sounds also like TM had no real problem losing the larger, heavier GZ. Granted, much of this was GZ pursuit in SUV, but there was a period where GZ left the truck and could not find TM. After all, TM was at least a little more in tune with his fitness than GZ was. Fact of the matter -- TM lost GZ. That should've been the end of it. TM goes inside his father's fiancee's house to wait for the freak in pursuit, yells outside a partially-opened door that if the cracker-ass freak doesn't leave the premise, he's going to call the cops. But that's not what the "frightened" TM did. TM decided (once having reached his destination) that he was going to find out what the hell the freak's problem was. To be clear, I can appreciate that and in my more "invincible" days must honestly say that I likely would've done the exact same, WRONG thing.
  • When having first approached TM within close enough proximity for an altercation, GZ had plenty of opportunity to draw his gun. He didn't. At no time was a gun mentioned. He sustained injuries reportedly at the hands of TM and then drew his weapon in self-defense.
  • I think GZ was surprised at the physical prowess of this kid and the situation got over his head quick. After sustaining injuries and crying out like a little biatch from this kid besting him, drew and fired his gun, killing TM.
  • Should GZ have followed TM? No. Particularly when specifically asked not to. However, that's not what's at issue in this case. GZ had broken no laws to that point. His MO is that there had been multiple crimes in the immediate area (which is true) and that he was going to find out what this unknown kid was up to. After all, GZ was selected to do such a thing and my guess is that he was chosen because he was, let's say... enthusiastic about the prospect of safe-guarding his neighborhood. GZ pursued TM. TM lost GZ and finally ends up at the back of his father's fiancee's house, and then an altercation ensues, GZ gets bloodied up (TM does not), GZ draws his gun and kills TM.

If GZ walks -- it's entirely due to the testimony of the prosecution's star witness. There was a time when I thought there really was something more to this story and that a severe injustice had been dealt. As it turns out, it's nothing more than another compilation of folly, confusion, head-strong aggression, and fear creating an unworthy battlefield for taking yet another precious life.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2013, 11:39 PM
 
Perhaps the defense or prosecution should subpoena the NSA for the recording of Trayvon's phone call!
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM. )
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2013, 01:16 AM
 
Not sure if this has already been said. But seems shes been caught in a direct lie. After watching this the story seems fabricated.

minute 19:20, look how nervous the parents and she is as she's caught changing her story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGeK3XHJ7l0

seems contrary to her answers in this video and the one ebuddy posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdja8D6TH9U
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Video including this statement here. Actual statement at approximately 2:05 in the clip.
Jeantel; "I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his daddy's fiancee's house."
Well let's finish the quote shall we?

Originally Posted by Rachel Jeantel
I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his daddy's fiancee's house. Like in the area where his daddy fiancé’ by his daddy fiancé house. Like I said oh you better keep running. He said naw he lost him. A couple of seconds later Trayvon said “Oh shit! The nigga is behind me!."
1. She didn't say TM had reached his home. He was "in the area".

2. If she thought he was at home why on earth would she tell him to "keep running"? That makes no sense.

3. Her words next were that "a couple of seconds later" TM is startled that GZ is right behind him. It's at this point where the confrontation takes place. This is when TM turns around and asks GZ why he was following him. Within seconds she here's TM saying "Get off! Get off!".

Sorry ... but the timeline doesn't support this theory. TM couldn't have traveled the distance from the fiance's house to where his body was found in a couple of seconds.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Not sure if this has already been said. But seems shes been caught in a direct lie. After watching this the story seems fabricated.

minute 19:20, look how nervous the parents and she is as she's caught changing her story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGeK3XHJ7l0

seems contrary to her answers in this video and the one ebuddy posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdja8D6TH9U
I'm really (genuinely) not seeing how they can convict GZ of any type of murder, given the evidence shown, unless there's some bombshell coming that the public and media are completely unaware of.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 02:48 PM
 
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 03:07 PM
 
Watching GZ's live video "re-enactment" of what supposedly happened. Looking for those bushes that he claimed TM was hiding behind when he suddenly jumped out and sucker punched him. Oh wait ... they don't exist.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 04:40 PM
 
George Zimmerman has said repeatedly that he was fighting for his life the night he killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old who was found with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. He was punched in the nose. His head was slammed repeatedly into the sidewalk. His mouth and nose were covered by Martin. But when Zimmerman sat for his final interview with Sanford Police detectives Christopher Serino and Doris Singleton, he was confronted with a pesky perception. His injuries didn’t match the severity of the story he told.

“As far as 25 and 30 punches,” Serino said at the Feb. 29 sit-down, “I’ve consulted with a lot of people, not quite consistent with your injuries. You do have injuries, however.” Yes, Zimmerman did have injuries — a broken nose and cuts on the back of his head. “I was on my back . . . he kept punching me,” Zimmerman explained. “And then when I started yelling for help that’s when he grabbed my head started to slam it.” Zimmerman told the detective he couldn’t remember how his head was slammed into the sidewalk or how many times he was punched in the nose. He also told Serino that he had no bruises or fractured ribs or other injuries.

Zimmerman’s cuts and lacerations were “not really coinciding with being slammed hard into the ground,” Serino said. “Skull fractures usually happen with that. I’ve seen them all.” Later in the interview, the detective apparently showed Zimmerman a piece of paper or a photograph and noted, “Once again, these are your defensive wounds, which are essentially nonexistent. I’m looking for bruising and scrapings and I don’t see. . . . You fared pretty well, probably because you had long sleeves on. . .”

What Serino also couldn’t understand was what could have set Martin off to attack Zimmerman in the manner he said he was. “The question is what enraged him so badly,” he asked.

Pointing out that Zimmerman had two opportunities to identify himself to Martin as a person who didn’t mean to do him harm, Serino said, “The problem being in his mind is, which I can’t get into because he’s passed, he perceived you as a threat. . . . He has every right to defend himself, especially when you are reaching into your pocket to grab the cellphone.

“What do you think his motivation was? The kid had no violent background. No violent tendencies that we can find,” Serino said. “What made him snap? He’s not on drugs. Can you fill in that blank? . . . What do you think set him off?” Serino asked.

“I don’t know,” Zimmerman replied.

“Had he been a goon, a bad kid, two thumbs up,” Serino continued. “No. He does not fit the profile of what occurred, which is another unfortunate thing we got going on here.”

Serino concludes this line of inquiry with an instantly memorable line. “I want to know, everybody wants to know, what set him off. He’s not on PCP. He’s not on anything. He’s on Skittles.
Zimmerman caught on tape: His injuries and Trayvon Martin’s motivation - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2013, 08:18 PM
 
Look OAW, I got nothing, but love for you my brother. All kidding aside, for what it's worth to you there's probably 4 or 5 people in this entire forum I thought would be fantastic to meet up with for a cocktail and you're one of 'em, but when you jump on a bandwagon -- you have an incredible knack for denial.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well let's finish the quote shall we?
Why would we do that? She had Martin at the back of his father's fiancee's house. She said it twice and the second time it came out you could tell she had just realized what she did and "corrected" herself. She did this again and I'll cite it below.

1. She didn't say TM had reached his home. He was "in the area".
Like "at the back of his dad's fiancee's house"? Instead of picking and choosing which varying aspect of her testimony to believe, why not acknowledge that she's injected doubt here?

2. If she thought he was at home why on earth would she tell him to "keep running"? That makes no sense.
Two phone calls OAW. Two calls. They had one call that dropped off and she called back. The conversation in the second phone call began with her asking him; "where you at?".

3. Her words next were that "a couple of seconds later" TM is startled that GZ is right behind him. It's at this point where the confrontation takes place. This is when TM turns around and asks GZ why he was following him. Within seconds she here's TM saying "Get off! Get off!".
Martin turns around (your words, could've been more like "returned to meet" for all we know from the evidence) and asks why Zimmerman is following him. Jeantel knew she botched this because the defense asked again who initiated words. She was so frustrated with her discomfort at that point that she urged the defense to move on. Zimmerman then supposedly asks what he's doing in the area. Yet we know that within seconds Zimmerman was getting bested by Martin because of the yet-to-be refuted evidence. Other than the fatal wound, there were no abrasions or injuries to Martin -- Zimmerman had sustained them all and there's zero evidence from witnesses or otherwise that he did this to himself.

Sorry ... but the timeline doesn't support this theory. TM couldn't have traveled the distance from the fiance's house to where his body was found in a couple of seconds.

OAW
If you have a problem with the timeline, you'll have to take that up with the prosecution's star witness. She's produced the conundrum by saying that Martin claimed he was at the back of his father's fiancee's house. Twice. She's the one who offered that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. We have a bloodied Zimmerman. The best eyewitness to take the stand has Martin on top of Zimmerman. We're talking about making a decision within the court system that will essentially end another man's life and with this remarkable disregard for a presumption of innocence or the importance of doubt in that judgement, I get the impression you'd hang this guy regardless.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2013, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Look OAW, I got nothing, but love for you my brother. All kidding aside, for what it's worth to you there's probably 4 or 5 people in this entire forum I thought would be fantastic to meet up with for a cocktail and you're one of 'em, but when you jump on a bandwagon -- you have an incredible knack for denial.
Likewise in all respects.


Why would we do that? She had Martin at the back of his father's fiancee's house. She said it twice and the second time it came out you could tell she had just realized what she did and "corrected" herself.
Let's look at the map of the sub-division shall we?



The blue dot in the lower right hand corner is where Trayvon was staying. The "top of the T" where the blue and orange lines intersect (#7) is where the confrontation took place. Now each building contains 6 units. And there's 6 buildings on that block. The dog path is "in the back" of all of them because it's common ground. My home has a similar setup. Not attached townhouses or anything like that. But our single family houses encircle a large area of common ground about the size of a couple of football fields. If my kids are out playing "in the back" of my house that doesn't necessarily mean they are in my personal backyard! They can be anywhere out in that area. So review Ms. Jeantel's statement with the picture ....

Originally Posted by Rachel Jeantel
I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his daddy's fiancee's house. Like in the area where his daddy fiancé’ by his daddy fiancé house. Like I said oh you better keep running. He said naw he lost him. A couple of seconds later Trayvon said “Oh shit! The nigga is behind me!."
So if Trayvon was at the "top of the T" then he was A) "at the back", B) "in the area", C) and would need to "keep running" because his residence was two buildings away.

Furthermore, the blue and orange lines are per GZ's story and reflect the paths they supposedly took. Note how not even GZ claims Trayvon made it all the way to his house given the path of the blue line. But let's explore that anyway. Now per GZ Trayvon supposedly circled his car at #5 ... even though he never mentioned anything of the sort on the phone with the police. When challenged by Det. Serino on why he didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch at that point GZ then claimed that Trayvon wasn't "within earshot". I'll pause for a moment to let that particularly egregious piece of BS marinate in your cerebral cortex for a bit in light of the picture.

.
.
.
.
.

But let's set that aside for now. I'll come back to that later. We hear on the tape when GZ says Trayvon took off running. It was near the clubhouse directly above the lake with the pool in the back per GZ's call to the police. The timeline simply doesn't support him getting all the way down to where he was staying and then doubling back all the way to the "top of the T" by the time GZ arrived there. Trayvon is not going to be able to run that distance and double back in the same timeframe as it takes for GZ to DRIVE around the corner from the clubhouse and get out at #6 and follow him to #7. But let's revisit GZ's claim that Trayvon circled his truck at #5. That makes his story even more BS because then Trayvon would have had to take off running immediately afterwards. And do you really think he could run from from #5 to #7 and all the way down the common area to his father's residence and then all the way back up to the "top of the T" before GZ could get out at #6 and follow him to #7? Even IF he went all the way to the street and came back to the "top of the T"? I mean just look at the map! Trayvon would have had to travel the same distance that GZ did PLUS the length of FOUR of those buildings (two buildings in both directions). Neat trick.

Not to mention that GZ claims he was "looking for an address" when he followed Trayvon but walked right past the building he was parked in front of at #6 to try to get an address from a building around the block.

Not to mention that GZ claims Trayvon was hiding behind bushes and jumped out and sucker punched him at the "top of the T" ... when no such bushes exist. Only a few small trees that would NOT have concealed someone that's 5'11".

Yeah right.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2013, 07:55 PM
 
A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

Zimmerman, 29, claims he shot Martrin, 17, in self defense on Feb. 26, 2012 as Martin repeatedly banged his head against the pavement and reached for Zimmerman's gun.

"If you look at the injuries they are so minor they are not consistent with grave force," Rao said. "If somebody's head is banged with grave force I would expect a lot of injuries. I don't see that."
George Zimmerman Jury Told His Injuries Were 'Insignificant' - ABC News

No physical evidence of these supposed "25-30" blows to the GZ's face by Trayvon Martin from an MMA style "ground and pound". Oh and did I mention that it came out at trial that GZ is the one who did MMA training three days a week for the last few years? No physical evidence of GZ having his head slammed repeatedly onto concrete. But the defense wants us to believe that this "life and death" struggle happened just the way GZ said it did even though his injuries were described by the forensic pathologist and Det. Serino as "minor" and "insignificant". The man who has every incentive to exaggerate Trayvon Martin's actions to save his own skin? When the neighbor called 911 we can hear the person screaming for help in the background ... and GZ TWICE denied it was his voice to Det. Serino. In fact, he said "That doesn't even sound like me.". But now he claims it's him. No pauses in the screams for help ... until the fatal gunshot. Det. Serino questions why not since Trayvon was supposedly "smothering" him. No pauses. No muffled screams. Nothing on the 911 tape (nor any of the eye/ear witnesses) capturing Trayvon yelling "You are going to die tonight motherf*cker!" and the other 1970s style Blaxploitation movie commentary he supposedly made. And no explanation from GZ how that could plausibly be. Sure it's possible. Just not very probable.

Now from the very beginning it's seemed to me that the kid got a good lick in and GZ went out like a b*tch and pulled a gun. GZ says himself that TM punched him in his face and he went down on his back. Dr. Rao testified today that GZ's injuries were consistent with that alone. The strike to the face along with the two minor cuts on the back of the head as GZ's head hit the ground. Certainly more consistent with that than GZ's tale of being beaten to within an inch of his life. Rachel Jeantel's testimony says that TM demanded to know why GZ was following him. Very reasonable considering the circumstances. GZ reportedly demanded to know what TM was doing around here. Somewhat reasonable. And I say "somewhat" because GZ failed to identify himself. Next thing there's a "bump" and TM is yelling "Get off! Get off!" and then punches GZ. Perhaps GZ tried to detain TM whom he repeatedly referred to as the "suspect" in his written statement? GZ was the one after all who said "F*cking punks. These a*sholes they always get away." when TM took off running away from him. But let's put all that aside and roll with GZ's story. GZ says TM said "You got a problem homey?". Again, very reasonable considering the circumstances. GZ supposedly says "No I don't have a problem." ... but then reaches in his front pocket to grab his cellphone to call 911 per his statement. Well let's see what Det. Serino had to say about all that shall we?

Originally Posted by Det. Serino
OK, so by not, were you, your job’s not to really to do anything at all when it comes to that kind of, it wasn’t your job to monitor him either. I mean, had that been done, and that’s, you know, and from our vantage point, you’ve had 2 opportunities to identify yourself as somebody who was actually not meaning to do him harm. Problem being, is that we’re visiting in his mind’s eye, which I can’t get into because he’s passed, that he perceives you as a threat. OK, he perceives you as a threat, he has every right to go and defend himself, especially when you reach into your pocket to grab a cell phone. OK, where I’m gravitating to here is to say that I guess that, this, could that have been a possibility for him getting so enraged at you? What do you think his mindset was? I’m telling you right now, the kid has no violent background, no violent tendencies that we can find, um, what made him snap? He’s not on drugs, um, can you fill in that blank?
So even if this part of GZ's story is true, the question then becomes how does GZ get to claim "self-defense"? Det. Singleton repeatedly asked GZ if he thought TM might have been "creeped out" by being followed during the initial questioning. And so if TM has "every right to go and defend himself" from the "creepy ass cracka" who was stalking him through the subdivision on a rainy, dark night ... the man who neither identified himself nor stated his business AND reached into his pocket ... how does the armed GZ get to claim "self defense" at the same time as the unarmed TM? Especially when GZ was the one who clearly initiated the confrontation?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2013, 10:29 PM
 
You've exhausted a great deal of energy on things that simply do not matter, OAW. A. All you have to show is that Trayvon lost Zimmerman and doubled back to meet him. That's not a kid who's running, afraid. A frightened kid (and you and I both know this to be true) would've long ditched Zimmerman to arrive at his father's fiancee's house. he doubled back. I'm guessing right around the time he said with indignance; "this n____ behind me." It certainly appears as such from viewing the map -- looks like a whole lot of extra, unnecessary travel for a kid who's afraid of the mean stalker no matter whose story you're listening to.

B. You have to define self-defense by the extent of the injuries you sustained before drawing and firing your weapon? Really? In what alternate reality?

Again, good investigative work, but... meaningless. You may as well go back to the fact that an armed man chased and ultimately killed a kid guilty of nothing more than carrying tea and skittles, that's where the case has to end. Otherwise, we've got a star witness for the prosecution who places Trayvon "beyond" Zimmerman (that's about as fair a description as it can be), but initiating the first verbal aspect of the confrontation. We've got an eyewitness testimony placing Trayvon on top during the altercation, audible screams that Zimmerman has actually claimed from the beginning that he had made, evidence of an armed man who sustained injuries prior to firing his weapon, and the tragic death of a kid less than one city block from his father's fiancee's house. The painful fact of the matter is that nothing had occurred that would've landed either one of them in jail until the first injury was dealt. From that point on it's an altercation between two people, one armed who felt his life was in jeopardy, and used his weapon. Yes, it's bullshit. The whole thing's bullshit from beginning to end. That's what sucks about it.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We're talking about making a decision within the court system that will essentially end another man's life and with this remarkable disregard for a presumption of innocence or the importance of doubt in that judgement, I get the impression you'd hang this guy regardless.
The presumption of innocence is only for the question of whether the defendant killed someone, not for why he killed them. There is no presumption of innocence in a claim of self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, and the defendant has to actually prove it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The presumption of innocence is only for the question of whether the defendant killed someone, not for why he killed them. There is no presumption of innocence in a claim of self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, and the defendant has to actually prove it.
Can you provide a citation for this? I might be missing something here, but the difference is between murder and self-defense. If there is no presumption of innocence with regard to self-defense, we wouldn't need a trial here as Zimmerman clearly took Trayvon's life and no one's questioning that fact.

As an aside, from the precedent perspective, there have certainly been acquittals for self-defense with less evidence than eyewitness testimony of self-defense and preceding injuries to the would-be killer.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Can you provide a citation for this?
Here's one chosen basically at random (well, google probably chose it somehow in order to move it to the top of my query):
Affirmative Defenses to Criminal Charges: Self-Defense, Necessity, Entrapment, Insanity & Intoxication | David J. Shestokas
"When a defendant admits that he has done a prohibited act, and he intended to do that act, but puts forward as a reason that it was done under a recognized exception to punishment, he is claiming an affirmative defense.
...
To claim an affirmative defense a defendant typically must meet several requirements. First, he must admit that he did the act that he is accused of doing, and second he must provide evidence of the legally recognized exception to holding him responsible."
(Bold added). That the defendant must present evidence is the exact opposite of the idea that he is presumed innocent until evidence is presented against him.


I might be missing something here, but the difference is between murder and self-defense. If there is no presumption of innocence with regard to self-defense, we wouldn't need a trial here as Zimmerman clearly took Trayvon's life and no one's questioning that fact.
Why wouldn't we need a trial as a venue for Zimmerman to present the evidence that supports his affirmative defense?


As an aside, from the precedent perspective, there have certainly been acquittals for self-defense with less evidence than eyewitness testimony of self-defense and preceding injuries to the would-be killer.
Can you give an example?

Generally, evidence for one side is weighted against evidence for the other side. If there was a winning case with less evidence supporting it, I would expect there to also have been less evidence contradicting it too
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The presumption of innocence is only for the question of whether the defendant killed someone, not for why he killed them. There is no presumption of innocence in a claim of self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, and the defendant has to actually prove it.
And that's precisely where GZ's story is falling short. You can't initiate a confrontation with someone who also has a right to self-defense, receive what is described as "minor" and "insignificant" injuries in response, and then shoot an unarmed kid and claim "self-defense". He took a kid's life who was walking home, minding his business, and committing no crime. Naturally, he must exaggerate and embellish the confrontation in order to make it such an "affirmative defense". The problem is that the physical evidence simply doesn't support his claims.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The problem is that the physical evidence simply doesn't support his claims.
Physical evidence isn't the only kind of evidence, it's just the best kind. I'm not saying it's impossible to make a case of self-defense without the benefit of physical evidence, but you do need some kind of evidence because you loose the presumption of innocence when you admit to a crime by claiming an affirmative defense.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've exhausted a great deal of energy on things that simply do not matter, OAW. A. All you have to show is that Trayvon lost Zimmerman and doubled back to meet him. That's not a kid who's running, afraid. A frightened kid (and you and I both know this to be true) would've long ditched Zimmerman to arrive at his father's fiancee's house. he doubled back. I'm guessing right around the time he said with indignance; "this n____ behind me." It certainly appears as such from viewing the map -- looks like a whole lot of extra, unnecessary travel for a kid who's afraid of the mean stalker no matter whose story you're listening to.
Again, the map and the blue line that is supposedly TM's path is based upon GZ's testimony alone.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
B. You have to define self-defense by the extent of the injuries you sustained before drawing and firing your weapon? Really? In what alternate reality?
For GZ to make a "self-defense" in this situation he has to prove that he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The kid was unarmed which means he can't go there. So instead he has to claim that he was being "severely beaten" and that shooting TM was necessary to stop it. Yet the extent of his injuries shows neither "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". IOW if an armed man gets into a "fist fight" with an unarmed man ... the armed man can't legally shoot the unarmed man simply because he took a few punches. Regardless of who threw the first punch! A bloody nose (oddly enough caused by two pinprick holes on the tip of GZ's nose .. not bleeding from the nostrils) and a couple of "minor" and "insignificant" cuts on the back of his head simply does not rise to the level of severity needed to justifiably use deadly force.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, good investigative work, but... meaningless. You may as well go back to the fact that an armed man chased and ultimately killed a kid guilty of nothing more than carrying tea and skittles, that's where the case has to end. Otherwise, we've got a star witness for the prosecution who places Trayvon "beyond" Zimmerman (that's about as fair a description as it can be), but initiating the first verbal aspect of the confrontation.
Ok.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We've got an eyewitness testimony placing Trayvon on top during the altercation,
And two other eyewitnesses placing GZ on top! And GZ admitting he was on top and claiming that he supposedly spread TM's arms out to restrain him. Yet TM was immediately found with his hands underneath him. And since dead mean don't move and no one touched TM this claim was obviously a lie right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
audible screams that Zimmerman has actually claimed from the beginning that he had made,
As I said earlier, GZ denied that it was him twice. He said out of his own mouth to Det. Serino "That doesn't even sound like me." Perhaps you want to simply ignore his statements to the police. So ... ok.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
evidence of an armed man who sustained injuries prior to firing his weapon,
Injuries described by medical experts as "minor" and "insignificant" and "not consistent with a head being slammed against concrete".

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
and the tragic death of a kid less than one city block from his father's fiancee's house. The painful fact of the matter is that nothing had occurred that would've landed either one of them in jail until the first injury was dealt. From that point on it's an altercation between two people, one armed who felt his life was in jeopardy, and used his weapon. Yes, it's bullshit. The whole thing's bullshit from beginning to end. That's what sucks about it.
Well the physical evidence tells a much different story. So perhaps it wasn't a matter of GZ thinking "his life was in jeopardy". Maybe he just brought a gun to a fist fight that he could have easily avoided and he simply used what he had available to win?

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 03:47 PM
 
Latest expert testimony ....

- Despite GZ's claims that TM grabbed his gun, TM's DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster. GZ's DNA was present naturally.

- Despite GZ's claims that TM pummeled him 25-30 times in the face, none of GZ's DNA was found on TM's hoodie. Not even on the cuffs or the sleeves. Even though Det. Serino described GZ's defensive wounds as "essentially non-existent".

- Despite GZ's claims of TM repeatedly slamming his nearly bald head on the concrete, none of GZ's DNA was found underneath TM's fingernails.

- Despite GZ claiming that he had never heard of the "Stand Your Ground" law in the Sean Hannity interview, come to find out he took a college course on self-defense where this was covered and received an A.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The presumption of innocence is only for the question of whether the defendant killed someone, not for why he killed them. There is no presumption of innocence in a claim of self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, and the defendant has to actually prove it.
I don't know that I agree with your interpretation of the law, particularly in Florida;

From Mosansky v State (2010):
“The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.”

From Montijo v. State (2011)
“The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.”
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Latest expert testimony ....

- Despite GZ's claims that TM grabbed his gun, TM's DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster. GZ's DNA was present naturally.

- Despite GZ's claims that TM pummeled him 25-30 times in the face, none of GZ's DNA was found on TM's hoodie. Not even on the cuffs or the sleeves. Even though Det. Serino described GZ's defensive wounds as "essentially non-existent".

- Despite GZ's claims of TM repeatedly slamming his nearly bald head on the concrete, none of GZ's DNA was found underneath TM's fingernails.

- Despite GZ claiming that he had never heard of the "Stand Your Ground" law in the Sean Hannity interview, come to find out he took a college course on self-defense where this was covered and received an A.

OAW
I'm still putting my money on this coming down to it being reckless homicide or manslaughter instead of murder.

Since it's the former, he won't go down on the latter.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Can you give an example?

Generally, evidence for one side is weighted against evidence for the other side. If there was a winning case with less evidence supporting it, I would expect there to also have been less evidence contradicting it too;
That's possible and I certainly don't have the google fu to go about finding any number of cases where a wife has killed her husband in self-defense minus eye witness testimony or apparent injuries to the woman or any number of cases where home intrusion may have been nothing more than burglary resulting in fatality. Otherwise, the burden of proof still seems to lay on the prosecution and the affirmative defense is ultimately up to jury sympathy minus the defense's proof or injection of doubt.

The thread continues, Uncle. Please see my post prior to subego's above.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:47 PM
 
More evidence that GZ's story is full of sh*t .....

Originally Posted by George Zimmerman
He was on top of my ... I shot him, and I didn't think I hit him because he sat up and said, 'Oh gosh, you me, you got it, you got me, you got it.
Now let's put aside the fact that TM saying ANYTHING after being shot directly in the heart is implausible at best. The cops arrived mere moments after the shooting and he was already dead. And the last time I checked dead men don't talk. Even if he managed to get a complete sentence out .... "Oh gosh"? Really? WTF is this ... Leave it to Beaver?

My point here is that simple logic and common sense shows that GZ is lying here. The ballistics testing shows that the shot was fired from even closer than "point blank range" which is defined as within 3 feet. The physical evidence shows that the barrel of the gun was in contact with with TM's hoodie when the shot was fired. As in .... impossible to miss.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm still putting my money on this coming down to it being reckless homicide or manslaughter instead of murder.

Since it's the former, he won't go down on the latter.
Agreed. What I don't know offhand is if the jury can convict on the lesser charge? Or if it's either 2nd Degree Murder or GZ walks?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
My point here is that simple logic and common sense shows that GZ is lying here. The ballistics testing shows that the shot was fired from even closer than "point blank range" which is defined as within 3 feet. The physical evidence shows that the barrel of the gun was in contact with with TM's hoodie when the shot was fired. As in .... impossible to miss.

OAW
I think this is one of those things which may be more counter intuitive than it seems.

I've never shot someone, but I've always been told it's way harder to hit someone at close range than you would imagine. Generally, in that situation you're hip-firing, which is actually really difficult.

Not that I'd have the balls to do it, but I've definitely been told if someone is going to shoot you, your best option is to charge* at them. If they flinch even a bit, there's a good chance they'll miss.


*This is assuming you don't have obvious better options, like taking cover or shooting back. Running away is actually the worst option.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:17 PM
 
^^^^

"Hip firing" from some sort of distance I can see your point. I guess what I'm saying is that if you put a gun in physical contact to a guy's chest and pull the trigger it's simply incredulous to think that you might have missed.

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:21 PM
 
In general, at ranges from about 2 feet to 5 feet, accuracy is a matter of "just how 'center of mass' do I need to be." The issue is if the opponent is either already closer than 2' (less than arm's length), or is closing on the shooter very quickly. In such situations, then one IS shooting "from the hip," and that's difficult for a number of reasons. However, when the muzzle of the gun is IN CONTACT with the person you're trying to shoot, it's pretty darn hard to miss.

subego, you have been told some slightly useful information. If it's too late to take cover or hide, if the other guy's gun is already lined up on you, charging isn't going to do you any harm, and CAN make the other guy flinch, freeze or otherwise fail to plug you. There are many documented reports of police officers freezing when charged, to the extent that this is now generally part of police training: "if he runs at you, fire NOW." Most criminals are hardly gunfighters, and they'll freeze, wet themselves, or fire somewhere other than at you. Of course it is HIGHLY preferable to be somewhere else when the nimnul figures out he has a gun...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

"Hip firing" from some sort of distance I can see your point. I guess what I'm saying is that if you put a gun in physical contact to a guy's chest and pull the trigger it's simply incredulous to think that you might have missed.

OAW
When you're that close to someone, and presumably in an altercation, you don't necessarily have awareness of where your gun is pointing.

Just like you can think you're dead-on with a point-blank shot and be way off, you can think you're not aiming at the person's chest at that range and be way off.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm honestly not following things closely enough to make a call either way. I'm just pointing out information I have about close-up work with a pistol, provided to me long before this incident happened.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
However, when the muzzle of the gun is IN CONTACT with the person you're trying to shoot, it's pretty darn hard to miss.
Hence why I say that GZ's statement was complete and utter BS.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:35 PM
 
One thing I'm confused about.

How is his chest a point blank hit and his hoodie a direct contact hit?

These are different things as I understand it. Is point blank even a forensic category?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One thing I'm confused about.

How is his chest a point blank hit and his hoodie a direct contact hit?

These are different things as I understand it. Is point blank even a forensic category?
They are different. So as I was saying the shot was closer than point blank which is within 3 feet but not direct contact. This was a direct contact shot.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:44 PM
 
That's why I'm confused.

Closer than point blank isn't contact. Contact is contact.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 06:59 PM
 
I'm not trying to challenge you. Just pick your brain because you've been paying more attention than me.

Feel free to tell me to kiss off and do my own research.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 07:17 PM
 
Did either side ask if TM's knuckles were swabbed?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2013, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's why I'm confused.

Closer than point blank isn't contact. Contact is contact.
The testimony today was that there was direct contact of the gun to TM's hoodie.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 05:15 AM
 
That's what's throwing me. I thought maybe I misremembered, but this was the first time I remember it being described as a contact shot.

The autopsy doesn't list it as contact. Is the jury going to buy the autopsy, or someone the prosecution paid to testify?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't know that I agree with your interpretation of the law, particularly in Florida;

From Mosansky v State (2010):
“The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.”

From Montijo v. State (2011)
“The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.”
Those don't seem to contradict what I said, that the defendant must present evidence, and that having to present evidence of your innocence is incompatible with a presumption of innocence. The standard of proof is not the same as the presumption of innocence is it?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's what's throwing me. I thought maybe I misremembered, but this was the first time I remember it being described as a contact shot.

The autopsy doesn't list it as contact. Is the jury going to buy the autopsy, or someone the prosecution paid to testify?
You are correct. The autopsy said "intermediate range". But the ballistics expert said it was a contact shot based upon the examination of the hoodie itself. Which helps GZ quite frankly. Still doesn't mean he should walk though.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
For GZ to make a "self-defense" in this situation he has to prove that he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The kid was unarmed which means he can't go there. So instead he has to claim that he was being "severely beaten" and that shooting TM was necessary to stop it.
A. No he does not have to "prove" that he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. That evidence has already been provided such that he stands before a jury of his peers.

B. It is now up to the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defense. There's still a presumption of innocence here.

Yet the extent of his injuries shows neither "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". IOW if an armed man gets into a "fist fight" with an unarmed man ... the armed man can't legally shoot the unarmed man simply because he took a few punches. Regardless of who threw the first punch! A bloody nose (oddly enough caused by two pinprick holes on the tip of GZ's nose .. not bleeding from the nostrils) and a couple of "minor" and "insignificant" cuts on the back of his head simply does not rise to the level of severity needed to justifiably use deadly force.
What you're missing here is that Zimmerman does not have to sustain any injuries at all. The fact that he sustained any injuries at all before drawing and firing his weapon suggests restraint, not malice or aforethought.

And two other eyewitnesses placing GZ on top! And GZ admitting he was on top and claiming that he supposedly spread TM's arms out to restrain him. Yet TM was immediately found with his hands underneath him. And since dead mean don't move and no one touched TM this claim was obviously a lie right?
Zimmerman claims he was on top to restrain Martin after he shot Martin. We don't know when Martin was pronounced dead do we? Otherwise, I don't remember two other eyewitnesses, wasn't at least one of them an ear witness? The neighbor lady who thought she heard the cries of a boy, not a man? Again, presumption of innocence and the burden on prosecution; an eyewitness testimony has Zimmerman on the bottom getting bested by Trayvon on top.

As I said earlier, GZ denied that it was him twice. He said out of his own mouth to Det. Serino "That doesn't even sound like me." Perhaps you want to simply ignore his statements to the police. So ... ok.
Short list of people who don't say this upon hearing their own voice in a recording. His story, OAW. According to his report to the police video-recorded before he lawyered up, he had been crying out for help and has been saying as much from the very beginning. You keep bringing up Detective Serino and what he said to the police -- what of this little gem?

At one point during his interview with Zimmerman, Detective Serino bluffed that he may have video of the incident shot on Martin’s cellphone.

"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two." Serino says nothing indicated to him that Zimmerman was a liar.
"You think he was telling the truth?" asked O'Mara. "Yes," said Serino.


I can't imagine why a man guilty of taking the life of a kid for no reason would be thankful for video evidence proving his guilt, can you?

Injuries described by medical experts as "minor" and "insignificant" and "not consistent with a head being slammed against concrete".
Not consistent with the head being "slammed" into the concrete perhaps, but doesn't mean that his head wasn't pushed into or held against the concrete such that Zimmerman felt he was in grave danger.

Well the physical evidence tells a much different story. So perhaps it wasn't a matter of GZ thinking "his life was in jeopardy". Maybe he just brought a gun to a fist fight that he could have easily avoided and he simply used what he had available to win?

OAW
What physical evidence tells a much different story? The physical evidence shows an armed man drawing and firing his weapon only after first sustaining injuries. Can you prove these injuries were not at the hands of Martin? No? Well then that's self-defense, it's missing malice or aforethought and it will result in involuntary manslaughter. That's my prediction.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You are correct. The autopsy said "intermediate range". But the ballistics expert said it was a contact shot based upon the examination of the hoodie itself. Which helps GZ quite frankly. Still doesn't mean he should walk though.

OAW
I'm torn between him probably being guilty (of at least manslaughter) and him definitely being railroaded.

I think the larger issue though is as I implied earlier in the thread. It's de facto legal to shoot someone at close range in Florida if there aren't any witnesses.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Those don't seem to contradict what I said, that the defendant must present evidence, and that having to present evidence of your innocence is incompatible with a presumption of innocence. The standard of proof is not the same as the presumption of innocence is it?
If he hadn't offered some evidence of his affirmative defense, he wouldn't be in front of a jury of peers on the matter. Now that he is, contrary to what you've said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove he wasn't acting in self defense. My legal jargon may be off a smidgen, but this to me maintains a presumption of innocence. They sound exactly the same to me, different phase of defense for different scenario. Armed guy kills unarmed guy. Does he deny it? If yes, he's presumed innocent and goes to trial. If he doesn't deny it, but offers a need to have committed the act, he's presumed innocent that the act was necessary and the prosecution must prove it wasn't.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 10:24 AM
 
It should be noted of course that none of this precludes the right for Martin's father to sue the shit out of Zimmerman, the State of Florida, _________, __________.

When folks talk about Zimmerman "walking", I often wonder where he's supposed to be walking the remainder of his days that prison wouldn't potentially be the better, safer bet. At least here in the US. He's more toxic than Paula Dean and she can cook.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 01:11 PM
 
ebuddy,

Regarding the "do you think he was telling the truth" issue, have you ever considered that Det. Serino might have been saying that GZ believed his story to be true but was still guilty of a crime? After all he thought GZ should be arrested for manslaughter and was overruled by the local prosecutors. Sometimes people actually do believe their own BS.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2013, 02:05 PM
 
They're both guilty of something; Martin of assault and GZ of being an obnoxious, nosy d-bag who shouldn't have been following Martin in the first place. Unfortunately, I can't find a Florida law that was broken by Zimmerman, WRT the shooting itself (without inducing a degree of reasonable doubt).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2013, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
ebuddy,

Regarding the "do you think he was telling the truth" issue, have you ever considered that Det. Serino might have been saying that GZ believed his story to be true but was still guilty of a crime? After all he thought GZ should be arrested for manslaughter and was overruled by the local prosecutors. Sometimes people actually do believe their own BS.

OAW
What does "arrested for manslaughter" mean? Of course it means exactly what is going to happen now, charged with involuntary manslaughter. He didn't say he thought GZ should be arrested for 1st or 2nd degree murder right? The crux of my point is that the Detective bluffed about their being a video and took note that GZ's response was "thank God". Can you tell me why the accused would be thankful for video evidence establishing his guilt?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2013, 01:14 PM
 
I didn't know Zimmerman said that.

Either that was the best double bluff in history, or is certainly what sounds like a response from someone who thinks he's innocent.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2