Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19254712-lead-investigator-zimmerman-may-have-exaggerated-his-injuries?lite

"The back-and-forth on the stand followed testimony Monday during which Serino told the court he believed Zimmerman was relieved after being told by investigators last year – falsely – that video may exist of the shooting. Serino had testified on Monday that he tried to bluff Zimmerman about the existence of a video to provoke a reaction and gauge Zimmerman’s assertion that he shot Martin in self-defense.

"The fact that George Zimmerman said to you, 'Thank God.  I hope somebody did videotape the event, the whole event.'  His statement – what did that indicate to you?" defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked Monday.

 "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two," Serino responded.

When questioned further, Serino said he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth and was not a pathological liar."

Hmmmmm.....

 
Looks like the prosecution got everything they wanted:

The judge allowed Zimmerman's school records to be admitted into evidence.

- Zimmerman applied to be a cop in Virginia but was turned down because of bad credit

- Zimmerman's former professor just confirmed that he covered the Stand Your ground Law in his course and that he got an A in the class. This is a direct contradiction to the Hannity interview where GZ said he didn't even know about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that the prosecution is going for 2nd Degree Murder and that they have to meet a certain burden of proof... but how exactly does that change when the defendant has already admitted to provoking the conflict and escalating the conflict?

 
Well he hasn't exactly admitted to escalating the conflict at all. Also, voluntary manslaughter is still one of the lesser charges he can be convicted of if there's not enough evidence for 2nd degree murder.

 
If the state can prove that he used excessive force (which is very likely now thanks to yesterday's testimony about the insignificance of his injuries), then there's a good chance they can show he didn't act in self-defense.

Whoo boy. This next witness had to be Skyped in.

If there's ne thing that I'm taking away from this trial, it's that Zimmerman intentionally framed his story in a way that made it hard for the state to prove he wasn't in fear for his life. He's an educated guy on the laws of self-defense and added several scenarios which are valid reason for deadly force: Head punching, head smashed into concrete, smothering, and finally going for his gun. If just one of these were the case his story would be more plausible, but all four in the span of 40-50 seconds? Not likely, especially with the lack of abrasion on Martin's hands other than the small one.

Zimmerman also seems to be implying that while this "beating" was going on he just lied there like a ragdoll and took it until he managed to get his gun and pull the trigger. This doesn't make any logical sense.

- Zimmerman also attempted to become an attorney, but I missed why he didn't become one.

- The ballistics expert is up yet.

- Zimmerman's gun was already had a bullet loaded into the chamber and ready to fire prior to the conflict. Looks like he had intent to fire his weapons before the final confrontation happened.

- The gunshot was a contact shot. It was up against Martin when it was fired. This also conflicts with Zimmerman's story that he didn't realize he shot him.

With every witness that takes the stand, Zimmerman's story falls apart piece by piece.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Zimmerman's gun was already had a bullet loaded into the chamber and ready to fire prior to the conflict. Looks like he had intent to fire his weapons before the final confrontation happened.

- The gunshot was a contact shot. It was up against Martin when it was fired. This also conflicts with Zimmerman's story that he didn't realize he shot him.
I was watching CNN a bit last night, and they were doing this whole thing about the fact that he had this "cheap", $3-400 pistol which astonishingly is inaccurate at greater than 15-20 feet, and he had a bullet in the chamber, or as the sensationalist reporter clarified, he was "carrying hot". George Zimmerman woke up that day planning on killing a black kid. His choice of gun and manner of carry, all but confirm that! :headache:

Holy fuck! So George Zimmerman is likely an horrible, racist asshole, I entirely believe that. I'm not convinced he's a murderer too, but regardless, the utter lack of knowledge in terms of concealed carry, and the way that information is being presented like it's just out of this world lunacy is truly pathetic. CNN has never been great, but they've had a really rough 3 months or so.

As someone who has taken a concealed carry class from the sheriff in our county, he heavily advises people to carry your weapon concealed (vs open carry) and to have a chambered round. Otherwise the concern is that if you needed to defend yourself in a life or death situation, and maybe the best you could do is get one hand free, you would be unable to rack the slide (chamber a round), then shoot. In a case like Zimmerman's where he's -allegedly- on the bottom, let's pretend he thought his life was in danger. The likelihood of drawing, racking the slide, and lethally defending himself would've been near impossible, or potentially resulted in his weapon being used on him. I'm using this case as the example, so whether he misused a gun or not is not the point I'm dwelling on, it's the misinformation and stupidity in things like saying "George Zimmerman was carrying his gun with a bullet in the chamber", like this is an indication he planned on killing someone.

Any self defense firearms trainer will tell you that without a round in the chamber, you are basically holding a very ineffective club. The fact that a handgun isn't a sniper rifle where you nail a target from 300 yards away is sorta the idea. Otherwise people would be wandering around with 20" barrels on sniper rifles as their "concealed" weapon of choice, for that guy half a county away that is threatening your life. Handguns are meant to be small, concealable, and effective at short distances. It's a little bit like saying this saw is a dangerous, ineffective alternative to a hammer, when building a deck.

 
Thanks for for the clarification with actual insider info on the matter.

One of the things they talked about during the witnesses testimony was the importance of the contact shot vs intermediate shot. it was confirmed that the gun was against Martin's hoodie (due to the burns around the hole) the but wasn't clear if it was directly against his chest. I'm not quite sure of the significance of that.

 
I was watching CNN a bit last night, and they were doing this whole thing about the fact that he had this "cheap", $3-400 pistol which astonishingly is inaccurate at greater than 15-20 feet, and he had a bullet in the chamber, or as the sensationalist reporter clarified, he was "carrying hot". George Zimmerman woke up that day planning on killing a black kid. His choice of gun and manner of carry, all but confirm that! :headache:

Holy fuck! So George Zimmerman is likely an horrible, racist asshole, I entirely believe that. I'm not convinced he's a murderer too, but regardless, the utter lack of knowledge in terms of concealed carry, and the way that information is being presented like it's just out of this world lunacy is truly pathetic. CNN has never been great, but they've had a really rough 3 months or so.

As someone who has taken a concealed carry class from the sheriff in our county, he heavily advises people to carry your weapon concealed (vs open carry) and to have a chambered round. Otherwise the concern is that if you needed to defend yourself in a life or death situation, and maybe the best you could do is get one hand free, you would be unable to rack the slide (chamber a round), then shoot. In a case like Zimmerman's where he's -allegedly- on the bottom, let's pretend he thought his life was in danger. The likelihood of drawing, racking the slide, and lethally defending himself would've been near impossible, or potentially resulted in his weapon being used on him. I'm using this case as the example, so whether he misused a gun or not is not the point I'm dwelling on, it's the misinformation and stupidity in things like saying "George Zimmerman was carrying his gun with a bullet in the chamber", like this is an indication he planned on killing someone.

Any self defense firearms trainer will tell you that without a round in the chamber, you are basically holding a very ineffective club. The fact that a handgun isn't a sniper rifle where you nail a target from 300 yards away is sorta the idea. Otherwise people would be wandering around with 20" barrels on sniper rifles as their "concealed" weapon of choice, for that guy half a county away that is threatening your life. Handguns are meant to be small, concealable, and effective at short distances. It's a little bit like saying this saw is a dangerous, ineffective alternative to a hammer, when building a deck.
tl;dr LOLZ

Kidding! :D

I'm going to agree(cause I think you agree with this too) that cocked and locked is a perfectly safe and valid way of CCW-ing with the "lock" part being a big part of that. Carrying "hot" is problematic for me, but I understand the thinking behind it.

And yes, CNN sucks and has sucked for years. I don't understand how anyone can watch that tripe. Just because it's not MSNBC or FOX doesn't mean it's balanced or unbiased. They feign being moderate by playing the devils advocate through reductio ad absurdum. STOP WATCHING IT :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The defense seems to be asking for a recess on friday because one of their witnesses isn't ready.

- The judge says no to that request.

- Crime lab analyst is up now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tl;dr LOLZ

Kidding! :D

I'm going to agree(cause I think you agree with this too) that cocked and locked is a perfectly safe and valid way of CCW-ing with the "lock" part being a big part of that. Carrying "hot" is problematic for me, but I understand the thinking behind it.

And yes, CNN sucks and has sucked for years. I don't understand how anyone can watch that tripe. Just because it's not MSNBC or FOX doesn't mean it's balanced or unbiased. They feign being moderate by playing the devils advocate through reductio ad absurdum. STOP WATCHING IT :D
It's OK. I closed my eyes for half of it anyway! :p

Yah, CNN was background noise while I was having dinner. I can't tolerate Fox or MSNBC, and can usually handle about 5 minutes of Anderson Cooper (can't do the morning airheads they put up there, or Piers Morgan) Finally got so annoyed with trial analysis, the emotional exploitation of the dead firefighter's relatives, and Anderson's gushing over Cher, I gave the remote to my wife...who changed it to Big Brother. it wasn't a good night in the Berzirk household. Haa haa.

 
Martin's DNA wasn't found on the grip of the gun.

Tests for DNA on other parts of the gun or holster only showed Zimmerman's DNA or were inconclusive.

None of Zimmerman's DNA was found underneath Martin's fingernails. Only his own blood was found under his nails. So much for Martin grabbing his head and bashing into the concrete.

Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's grey undershirt in one spot. Other than that, only Martin's own DNA was found or was inconclusive.

There were a few small spots of Martin's DNA being on Zimmerman's jacket. Nothing major that support's Zimmerman's claims. Most of Zimmerman's blood on his own clothing was his own.

Defense is crossing and trying (and failing) the discredit the DNA testing.

In a nutshell, any claims by Zimmerman that Martin brutally punched him, bashed his head onto the concrete, tried to smother him, or went for his gun have officially gone out the window.

- All done for the day. Today was another big win for the prosecution. Zimmerman's story no longer has legs to stand on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How did it all go out the window? Both had long sleeves on and it was pouring rain. Do you really think DNA is swapped by touching something with bare skin? Besides Zimmerman's gun was expose to the rain and anything might have been left by Martin's DNA on the gun was ruined when Zimmerman grabbed his gun firmly and fired. The whole DNA angle was a wash for both sides. The only reason the prosecution brought it up was to show off how hard the office worked on trying to get evidence.
 
Martin had only his own DNA under his fingernails. This tosses out him grabbing Zimmerman's head and slamming it into the concrete.

Martin had no other DNA on his hands but his own and one small abrasion on his knuckles. This tosses out him hitting Zimmerman 25-30 times and covering his mouth so he can't yell for help.

Martin's DNA OR prints weren't found on the gun. This tosses out Zimmerman's claim that Martin went for the gun.

You wanna argue with or deny the science behind that evidence be my guest, but I can assure you you're not come out on top of that debate. Hell, even the defense had to resort with the "the evidence wasn't stored/collected properly/tampered with" which is the white flag of surrender when DNA proves your case wrong.

Here's my own personal theory of how things went down that night (I'm taking into account Rachel's testimony because hers never changed):

Martin sees Zimmerman watching him and ran away, but not towards his house so this guy watching him wouldn't find out where he lived. He probably hung out somewhere for a few minutes, and when he figured the coast was clear he went back to the T-intersection and headed home.  

When he gets partway down the path he notices Zimmerman has found him. He keeps walking until Zimmerman is on him; Martin asks him why he's following him, Zimmerman asks what he's doing around here. Based on what the evidence shows I think the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman grabbed Martin in an effort to detain him (this is the legal definition of assault: unwanted touching), which prompted Martin to give him a punch to the face and then they struggle standing on the sidewalk with Martin yelling "Get off! Get off!" until the finally go rolling in the grass. Zimmerman goes for his gun and Martin is screaming for help while trying to keep Zimmerman from shooting him. Finally, Zimmerman gets the upper hand and fires one round into Martin's chest.

The spec of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's grey shirt tell us that at some point he was on top of Martin and grabbed at it. The most likely candidate is that some of his bloody nose dripped onto Martin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boy, I don't know if we can come to those conclusions based on what I've read today. Lack of Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails doesn't say a lot. I don't know how you'd get someone's DNA under your nails if you're pushing or slamming someone's head down. Also don't see how you would get your DNA on something my simply touching it (or in opposite, not have it on there, as proof you didn't touch it).

Again, from what I've read, and about 7minutes of idiocy through CNN, it sounds like both sides have done poorly, with witnesses that strengthened the wrong side, bad attempts at humor, or overall amateur in and out of court behavior. I wouldn't be surprised to see the guy walk, because the prosecution has been inept, and the burden is so high, that there could enough of a lack of evidence, that they can't legally find the guy guilty of murder. Not thanks to the defense attorneys' mediocre effort.

Dunno...THIS...is why they play the game.

 
Just disregard the yammering of the talking heads and watch livestream of the trial. That's what i did.

If you're punching someone repeatedly and grabbing their head or covering their mouths, You're hands would be bruised at the very least and possibly have a few broken bones at the most and have some trace of their blood or saliva on your hands, neither of which were found on Martin's.

 
Martin's DNA OR prints weren't found on the gun. This tosses out Zimmerman's claim that Martin went for the gun.
Not to sound like I'm leaning one way or the other here, but "going for" isn't the same as touching. Did Zimmerman ever claim that Martin actually touched the firearm?
 
Martin had only his own DNA under his fingernails. This tosses out him grabbing Zimmerman's head and slamming it into the concrete.
How? Imagine grabbing something round say a basketball. Are you using your palms and fingertips or are you trying using your finger nails/fingertips? I know I use my palms and fingertips since this gives me a better grip. So finding no Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's nails is no surprise.

Martin had no other DNA on his hands but his own and one small abrasion on his knuckles. This tosses out him hitting Zimmerman 25-30 times and covering his mouth so he can't yell for help.
I agree partly with you on this. I believe Zimmerman was punched a few times in the area of 5-10 hits. You don't get a busted nose, bruising on face, or cuts on the back of the head with 1 or 2 punches but saying upwards of the 25-30 punches is too much given the timeframe this took place in and his face would have been in a much worse shape unless Martin was fast but very weak.

Martin's DNA OR prints weren't found on the gun. This tosses out Zimmerman's claim that Martin went for the gun.
Again how?

Look at my post above on this matter or if you don't like it try this one Martin did reach but didn't touch the gun.

You wanna argue with or deny the science behind that evidence be my guest, but I can assure you you're not come out on top of that debate. Hell, even the defense had to resort with the "the evidence wasn't stored/collected properly/tampered with" which is the white flag of surrender when DNA proves your case wrong.
I'm not argueing or deny the science. What I will argue is your interpretation of said science.

Here's my own personal theory of how things went down that night (I'm taking into account Rachel's testimony because hers never changed):
Please tell me you are kidding! Your theory is based on Martin GF's story? The one who lied about her age, also where and reason she wasn't at the funeral. Not to mention she is biased since again she was Martin's GF.

Martin sees Zimmerman watching him and ran away, but not towards his house so this guy watching him wouldn't find out where he lived. He probably hung out somewhere for a few minutes, and when he figured the coast was clear he went back to the T-intersection and headed home.

When he gets partway down the path he notices Zimmerman has found him. He keeps walking until Zimmerman is on him; Martin asks him why he's following him, Zimmerman asks what he's doing around here. Based on what the evidence shows I think the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman grabbed Martin in an effort to detain him (this is the legal definition of assault: unwanted touching), which prompted Martin to give him a punch to the face and then they struggle standing on the sidewalk with Martin yelling "Get off! Get off!" until the finally go rolling in the grass. Zimmerman goes for his gun and Martin is screaming for help while trying to keep Zimmerman from shooting him. Finally, Zimmerman gets the upper hand and fires one round into Martin's chest.

The spec of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's grey shirt tell us that at some point he was on top of Martin and grabbed at it. The most likely candidate is that some of his bloody nose dripped onto Martin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey bear489,

It's nice of you to join in on the debate/discussion, but please, put some effort into making your post readable and distinct from the one you're quoting.

Thanks.
 
Hey bear489,It's nice of you to join in on the debate/discussion, but please, put some effort into making your post readable and distinct from the one you're quoting.Thanks.
My bad typing on phone ain't cheesy....sorry again easy. I'll type out my version once my laptop is charged.
 
Not to sound like I'm leaning one way or the other here, but "going for" isn't the same as touching. Did Zimmerman ever claim that Martin actually touched the firearm?
In his friend's testimony, I think he said in his book that Martin physically touched the gun. Zimmerman's stories are all over the place. He's told 3-4 versions of what happened that night.

Be that as it may, there is some DNA in the slide, but the forensics can't even tell if it's human. For all we know Bigfoot could have handled the gun at some point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is my theory of how things went, just basing this off of watching the trail so far. I believe that Zimmerman saw Martin walking in-between buildings, looking around, and not in a hurry to get out of the rain. Zimmerman decided to act by calling the non-er line to report his suspension so the police can deal with it.(based on phone record and account of Zimmerman)

I believe that at this time Martin realize that he was being followed and wanted to lose his "tail". (based on account of Rachel's testimony) I think Martin did lose Zimmerman for a bit and hide to be sure. When Zimmerman was watching Martin go behind the buildings he decided to get out to give location to non-er line and see if Martin was going into one of the houses. By the time Zimmerman reached the t-intersection the non-er line advise Zimmerman to discontinue. At this time Zimmerman agreed since he lost sight of Martin and turned to leave.

Martin hung up w/ Rachel and saw Zimmerman again this time at the t-intersection, he decided to confront Zimmerman in a hostile way. (based on Zimmerman's account). I believe Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and he fell on the ground, Martin saw this opening to "teach" this ((crazy a** cracka) (Rachel's testimony). so Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman pinning him to the ground, punching Zimmerman in the face.(based on Good's testimony)

I believe the force from the hits and Zimmerman's head so close to the ground he felt as if Martin was slamming his head onto the concert. I also believe that Zimmerman had his hands up trying to block, if you saw the pic of Zimmerman that night you notice his coat was unzipped. With both Zimmerman's hands up and his coat unzipped his gun is now exposed for the world to see. I think Martin saw the gun and did say "you're going to die tonight" and reached for it. Zimmerman was able to stop Martin from getting his hand on the gun and was able to then pull it and fire one shot. (based on Good's and another witness testimony on hearing one shot). At this time Zimmerman was able to get free and then get on top of Martin to secure him. (again based on another witness)

 
This is my theory of how things went, just basing this off of watching the trail so far. I believe that Zimmerman saw Martin walking in-between buildings, looking around, and not in a hurry to get out of the rain. Zimmerman decided to act by calling the non-er line to report his suspension so the police can deal with it.(based on phone record and account of Zimmerman)

I believe that at this time Martin realize that he was being followed and wanted to lose his "tail". (based on account of Rachel's testimony) I think Martin did lose Zimmerman for a bit and hide to be sure. When Zimmerman was watching Martin go behind the buildings he decided to get out to give location to non-er line and see if Martin was going into one of the houses. By the time Zimmerman reached the t-intersection the non-er line advise Zimmerman to discontinue. At this time Zimmerman agreed since he lost sight of Martin and turned to leave.
Uhhh...this isn't even consistent with Zimmerman's 911 call or statements.


Martin hung up w/ Rachel and saw Zimmerman again this time at the t-intersection, he decided to confront Zimmerman in a hostile way. (based on Zimmerman's account). I believe Martin sucker punched Zimmerman and he fell on the ground, Martin saw this opening to "teach" this ((crazy a** cracka) (Rachel's testimony). so Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman pinning him to the ground, punching Zimmerman in the face.(based on Good's testimony)
This isn't consistent with Jeantel's testimony either and Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker." There's a difference and context is important. Physical evidence, like of Zimmerman's face, is not consistent with Zimmerman's story either.

I believe the force from the hits and Zimmerman's head so close to the ground he felt as if Martin was slamming his head onto the concert. I also believe that Zimmerman had his hands up trying to block, if you saw the pic of Zimmerman that night you notice his coat was unzipped. With both Zimmerman's hands up and his coat unzipped his gun is now exposed for the world to see. I think Martin saw the gun and did say "you're going to die tonight" and reached for it. Zimmerman was able to stop Martin from getting his hand on the gun and was able to then pull it and fire one shot. (based on Good's and another witness testimony on hearing one shot). At this time Zimmerman was able to get free and then get on top of Martin to secure him. (again based on another witness)
If Martin was using Zimmerman's face as a punching bag like you assume he was, there'd be evidence of it on Zimmerman's face and Martin's hands. It doesn't sound like you're familiar with combat sports, but there's a reason why boxers wear gloves and it's not to protect their face. Martin's hands would've experienced extreme trauma from all those strikes; not a quarter inch scratch underneath one of his knuckles. Even then, Zimmerman's face would've been turned into hamburger and the back of his head would've had more than a couple superficial cuts.

There's some important stuff that we don't know, but you don't need to make up stuff for the things we DO know.

Btw, Rachel Jeantel was not Martin's girlfriend, but a girl friend. Big difference there. I also don't think that lying about her age or about going to the hospital is a huge deal. It's not like she lied about a second passport to a judge, lied about her financial ability to post bail, or conspired to flee the country and skip bail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DD basically covered everything I was gonna say, but I'll add that in Rachel's testimony, when Martin saw Zimmerman the second time she noted that he kept saying "he''s getting closer", once again reinforcing the notion Martin was trying to evade him.

One thing about Zimmerman's 911 was pointed out to me over on another forum: he tells the dispatcher to tell the cops to call him back and then he'd give him his location. That right there tells me he was looking to seek Martin out for a confrontation. If he was really gonna stay and wait at his truck he would have given them the address of the house he was parked right in front of with the address clear as day. The "tell them to call me back" signals Z knew he wouldn't be in that same spot for long and was actively seeking out Martin on-foot. Shit like that makes your self defense claim look worse and worse.

Also, I found out that Florida law doesn't recognize imperfect self-defense, which was brought up during the trial (i.e you start a confrontation, you start to lose, you use force [lethal or otherwise] to subdue your attacker, and you can still claim self-defense), so he can't use that to hide behind.

 
None of that matters! George can walk behind anyone in his neighborhood's public sidewalk as much as his prejudiced cracka ass wants to. Its not illegal. The prosecution has to prove that he committed an illegal act. If there is any reasonable way in which Trayvon assaulted George, (especially without George striking him first, he had no other injuries, right?) and pinned GZ to the ground making him fear for his life, then GZ acted in self defense. If that is the case, then we should be celebrating the fact that he used his Constitutionally protected right to defend himself. I see a lot of people over forgive failings in character by both GZ and TM. Doesn't TM history of fighting mean anything here? And why would GZ shoot him if he was not in fear? A psychotic break? Racial tension overload? An overly complicated and opportunistic plan to see what it feels like to kill someone? All the while knowing the police, THAT HE CALLED, would be there soon? And why was GZ so happy to hear that the whole incident was video recorded if it would not clear him?  I think there is always the possibility that GZ shot TM without being pinned down and fearing for his life, but the evidence points toward the more likely scenario of a young hot head assaulting an over zealous wanna be cop with disastrous, yet legal, results.

 
Sabrina Fulton just took the stand. She just identified the voice screaming on the 911 tape as her son.

- Martin had two tattoos: One of praying hands with his grandmother's name, and another of his mother's name.

- Martin's older brother is on the stand right now. The defense is trying to impeach him because they saying he said at an earlier time he said he wasn't sure if it was his brother's scream but it now saying it is.

 - The judge says his motion for impeachment is denied since it has no legal basis.

- There's some sort of issue with the lock on the evidence locker, so they just called in a locksmith.

- They got the lock open and the trial is back on.

- The medical examiner Dr. Bao is up now. He did the autopsy. Martin was 158 lb.s at the time he was shot and Bao says he believes Martin was alive and in great pain for a few seconds after he was shot.

- They're showing x-rays of the body from the autopsy.

- No foreign blood or injuries to Martin other than the gunshot wound and the small cut on his finger. The abrasions on his hands were so small the doctor couldn't even measure them.

- Martin had blood seeping into his lungs after he was shot.

- Martin was shot straight in the heart and could have been alive for 1-10 minutes.

- Dr. Bao says Martin was shot from the intermediate range, which is between 4 inches and 4 feet.

- Martin's brain was still alive, could feel pain, and he possibly could not move, based on the doctor's experience with this kind of wound.

- The defense tried to request that Martin's THC levels be brought up, but this was denied by the judge.

- West is trying to get Bao to admit that he did a faulty job examining the body and documenting it and failing miserably.

- Bao stated that Martin could not have spoken after he was shot and had no chance of survival.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bear489: This is my theory of how things went, just basing this off of watching the trail so far. I believe that Zimmerman saw Martin walking in-between buildings, looking around, and not in a hurry to get out of the rain. Zimmerman decided to act by calling the non-er line to report his suspension so the police can deal with it.(based on phone record and account of Zimmerman)

I believe that at this time Martin realize that he was being followed and wanted to lose his "tail". (based on account of Rachel's testimony) I think Martin did lose Zimmerman for a bit and hide to be sure. When Zimmerman was watching Martin go behind the buildings he decided to get out to give location to non-er line and see if Martin was going into one of the houses. By the time Zimmerman reached the t-intersection the non-er line advise Zimmerman to discontinue. At this time Zimmerman agreed since he lost sight of Martin and turned to leave.
Uhhh...this isn't even consistent with Zimmerman's 911 call or statements.
Yes it is. I just re listen to the non-er line record. It is 4:05 min long. Zimmerman is advising why he called and at the 1:22 min mark Zimmerman advise that Martin was coming towards his truck. At the 2:08 mark Zimmerman advise he is running and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way, that is when he got out of the truck to follow on foot. At 2:25 dispatcher asked if Zimmerman is following and advise not to. I believe Zimmerman has stop based on the background noise. When he was moving you can hear his heavy breathing and wind but all this stops at the 2:30 mark. At the 2:56 mark after Zimmerman provides his name, ph #, and address, the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman would like to meet with officer, Zimmerman advise yes. Zimmerman proceeds on telling how to get to the mailboxes. This wraps up the call with dispatch confirming Zimmerman's ph # and will call back once officer is there. Now why would Zimmerman keep going towards Martin known last location if he needed to leave and meet with officer at mailbox? He wouldn't. At this point I believe Zimmerman has stopped at the t-intersection when the background noise has stopped as well and he was turning to go back to his truck and go on to the mailboxes when Martin came out and confronted Zimmerman. If you look at the time frame of Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and the end of the call Martin had about 2 mins to put great distance between himself and Zimmerman but he didn't, he wanted to show he was all gangster on this "crazy a** cracka".

the above I posted is based on the recorded call from Zimmerman. Let's look at Rachel's testimony since she was on the ph with Martin at the time Zimmerman is on his ph. Which I don't put much weight in her telling the truth since she lied before. see my post above. Martin and Rachel are talking on ph while Martin is walking and looking around. Martin sees Zimmerman watching him Rachel ask what the guy look like and Martin response is a "crazy a** cracka." Rachel thinks it might be a rapist. Martin says "stop playing like that." then said "going to try to lose the man" after this Rachel said they started talking about the all star game. then Martin says "the nigga is following me now" Rachel advise to run when Martin said "I'm almost home" at this time the ph hung up and Rachel called back, Martin answered Rachel asks where Martin is, Martin advise "behind the house". Rachel said to keep running when Martin said " nah I lost him". then a few secs later Martin said " oh s***, the nigger is behind me" Rachel advise to keep running and again Martin said "no I'm near my house". Rachel said Martin and then she heard Martin say "why you following me" then heard heavy breathing man "what cha doin around here." Rachel keeps asking Martin what is going on. then Rachel heard a bump. then Rachel heard wet grass sound. (didn't know wet grass had a sound) Rachel keeps calling Martin name and then hears kinda not sure "get off get off" before the phone call ends. Rachel calls back but unable to reach him.

I believe Rachel made up the last part. 1) how can one hear wet grass?(minor point) 2) if you listen to the recording of Zimmerman he was heavy breathing while walking but quickly gained normal breathing when he stopped. so there is no way she heard Zimmerman heavy breathing because he had already stopped when asked to. I believe that Martin came up to Zimmerman and confronted him and then sucker punched Zimmerman. 3) if Martin is so close to home why didn't go on when he lost Zimmerman? Martin could have gone for help or even hang up on Rachel and called 911 himself.

This isn't consistent with Jeantel's testimony either and Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker." There's a difference and context is important. Physical evidence, like of Zimmerman's face, is not consistent with Zimmerman's story either.
Again look at my last post. Sorry if I didn't make my post clear about the "creepy a** cracka" part. I partly agree that Zimmerman didn't get hit no where near what Zimmerman is claiming, but remember he was on bottom getting hit so it might have felt alot worse then what it was.

If Martin was using Zimmerman's face as a punching bag like you assume he was, there'd be evidence of it on Zimmerman's face and Martin's hands. It doesn't sound like you're familiar with combat sports, but there's a reason why boxers wear gloves and it's not to protect their face. Martin's hands would've experienced extreme trauma from all those strikes; not a quarter inch scratch underneath one of his knuckles. Even then, Zimmerman's face would've been turned into hamburger and the back of his head would've had more than a couple superficial cuts.
See above.

There's some important stuff that we don't know, but you don't need to make up stuff for the things we DO know.
I didn't make things up. I told it before this is my own take of events.

Btw, Rachel Jeantel was not Martin's girlfriend, but a girl friend. Big difference there. I also don't think that lying about her age or about going to the hospital is a huge deal. It's not like she lied about a second passport to a judge, lied about her financial ability to post bail, or conspired to flee the country and skip bail.
You're right Rachel was not Martin GF but just a friend. The way the news said it just sounded like she was. I believe this is a huge deal of her lying. Why lie about details that really don't amount to anything? If you can lie about the minor things what says you aren't lying about the things that do matter? Like I said before I believe she lied about the last part the important part of who started the conflict.
 
Dr. Bao is all done. I believe the state wants to now bring in a witness who can testify to the weather conditions that evening and the defense objected.

- The state has rested and the defense is trying for judgement of acquittal. Each side is giving their arguments.

- Motion denied. This case goes to the jury.

- Zimmerman's mom was just up. She says the screams in the 911 tape were her son, so both mom's say that was their son on the tape.

- Zimmerman's uncle is on the stand now.

All done for the day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes it is. I just re listen to the non-er line record. It is 4:05 min long. Zimmerman is advising why he called and at the 1:22 min mark Zimmerman advise that Martin was coming towards his truck. At the 2:08 mark Zimmerman advise he is running and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way, that is when he got out of the truck to follow on foot. At 2:25 dispatcher asked if Zimmerman is following and advise not to. I believe Zimmerman has stop based on the background noise. When he was moving you can hear his heavy breathing and wind but all this stops at the 2:30 mark. At the 2:56 mark after Zimmerman provides his name, ph #, and address, the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman would like to meet with officer, Zimmerman advise yes. Zimmerman proceeds on telling how to get to the mailboxes. This wraps up the call with dispatch confirming Zimmerman's ph # and will call back once officer is there. Now why would Zimmerman keep going towards Martin known last location if he needed to leave and meet with officer at mailbox? He wouldn't. At this point I believe Zimmerman has stopped at the t-intersection when the background noise has stopped as well and he was turning to go back to his truck and go on to the mailboxes when Martin came out and confronted Zimmerman. If you look at the time frame of Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and the end of the call Martin had about 2 mins to put great distance between himself and Zimmerman but he didn't, he wanted to show he was all gangster on this "crazy a** cracka".
This is inconsistent from your initial proposed scenario and statements made by Zimmerman, himself. And again with the "crazy ass cracker" thing. I know you fixed it later in this post, but he said CREEPY ass cracker, which IS consistent with Zimmerman's actions.

the above I posted is based on the recorded call from Zimmerman. Let's look at Rachel's testimony since she was on the ph with Martin at the time Zimmerman is on his ph. Which I don't put much weight in her telling the truth since she lied before. see my post above. Martin and Rachel are talking on ph while Martin is walking and looking around. Martin sees Zimmerman watching him Rachel ask what the guy look like and Martin response is a "crazy a** cracka." Rachel thinks it might be a rapist. Martin says "stop playing like that." then said "going to try to lose the man" after this Rachel said they started talking about the all star game. then Martin says "the nigga is following me now" Rachel advise to run when Martin said "I'm almost home" at this time the ph hung up and Rachel called back, Martin answered Rachel asks where Martin is, Martin advise "behind the house". Rachel said to keep running when Martin said " nah I lost him". then a few secs later Martin said " oh s***, the nigger is behind me" Rachel advise to keep running and again Martin said "no I'm near my house". Rachel said Martin and then she heard Martin say "why you following me" then heard heavy breathing man "what cha doin around here." Rachel keeps asking Martin what is going on. then Rachel heard a bump. then Rachel heard wet grass sound. (didn't know wet grass had a sound) Rachel keeps calling Martin name and then hears kinda not sure "get off get off" before the phone call ends. Rachel calls back but unable to reach him.

I believe Rachel made up the last part. 1) how can one hear wet grass?(minor point) 2) if you listen to the recording of Zimmerman he was heavy breathing while walking but quickly gained normal breathing when he stopped. so there is no way she heard Zimmerman heavy breathing because he had already stopped when asked to. I believe that Martin came up to Zimmerman and confronted him and then sucker punched Zimmerman. 3) if Martin is so close to home why didn't go on when he lost Zimmerman? Martin could have gone for help or even hang up on Rachel and called 911 himself.
Don't be obtuse. Walking on grass makes a different sound if it's wet or dry. Yeah, you say it's a minor point, but you also brought it up twice as if it were somehow profound because she couldn't articulate it when you can't yourself.

Again look at my last post. Sorry if I didn't make my post clear about the "creepy a** cracka" part. I partly agree that Zimmerman didn't get hit no where near what Zimmerman is claiming, but remember he was on bottom getting hit so it might have felt alot worse then what it was.
You also edited your post to say "5-10 hits" instead of the original 15-20 hits that you assumed. Also, it's more than possible to make that type of injury to someone's face with 1-2 hits, but it's almost impossible to walk away with no injuries to your hands and wrists with the numbers you and Zimmerman are proposing.

edit: Again, the physical evidence of his injuries doesn't match with either of your scenarios.

I didn't make things up. I told it before this is my own take of events.
Read what you just wrote there. Read it until you understand the silliness of it.

edit: Ok, maybe that was a little harsh, but yes you did. Your characterization of why Zimmerman was following Martin is inconsistent with his 911 call and police statement. Then your comment about Martin showing his true colors, pun intended, can't be confirmed either when Zimmerman has been shown to be less than consistent at the very least and brazenly dishonest at worst. Not to mention that Martin doesn't have a history of this type of behavior(twitter doesn't count), while Zimmerman has an established history of being a overzealous, to put it kindly.

You're right Rachel was not Martin GF but just a friend. The way the news said it just sounded like she was. I believe this is a huge deal of her lying. Why lie about details that really don't amount to anything? If you can lie about the minor things what says you aren't lying about the things that do matter? Like I said before I believe she lied about the last part the important part of who started the conflict.
Please explain the mental gymnastics of believing that Jeantel is lying about what she heard on the phone and believing Zimmerman's account, which has a few different versions as well as conspiring to skip town with his wife.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might conspire to skip town even if I'm innocent because of all the crap info, stereotyping, racial tension, and gov't criminality that this case has involved. MSNBC edited the tape to make it sound racial, Obama speaks out on Trayvon's side without having all the facts(he does this a lot...) ;) , death threats are posted, tweeted, etc saying I'll be murdered if I'm found not guilty(a TON of these...), the prosecution criminally leaves out evidence when getting the arrest warrant, etc, etc.....The days of presumed innocent until found guilty seem long gone, especially on here....

 
Defense is bringing in the emotional family members now. Military vet now in law enforcement vs. Rachel Jeantel? Who is more credible? Haha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might conspire to skip town even if I'm innocent because of all the crap info, stereotyping, racial tension, and gov't criminality that this case has involved. MSNBC edited the tape to make it sound racial, Obama speaks out on Trayvon's side without having all the facts(he does this a lot...) ;) , death threats are posted, tweeted, etc saying I'll be murdered if I'm found not guilty(a TON of these...), the prosecution criminally leaves out evidence when getting the arrest warrant, etc, etc
I find it hilarious that you're hung up on the Citizen's Grand Jury(TM) "indictment." Keep being you and pushing that thing, brah...etc etc:rofl:

.....The days of presumed innocent until found guilty seem long gone, especially on here....
I didn't realize that we're all members of the jury. Or maybe you can tell us how you haven't found Martin guilty of attempted murder already. Innocent until guilty my ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it hilarious that you're hung up on the Citizen's Grand Jury(TM) "indictment." Keep being you and pushing that thing, brah...etc etc:rofl:

I didn't realize that we're all members of the jury. Or maybe you can tell us how you haven't found Martin guilty of attempted murder already. Innocent until guilty my ass.
Damn, you keep pulling me back in....I decided to check this thread real quick while my girl dries her hair before we go out, but I can't resist responding. She'll probably get pissed that now I'm making her wait....I blame you, doh ;) .

Anyway, are you saying that since we are not jurors that we don't have to have an open mind and evaluate the facts? I haven't found TM guilty of anything. He's not on trial. I can see a POSSIBILITY in which a young hot headed teenager, who has been in fights previously and has been suspended from school a few times, picked a fight with a guy who followed him and who he made disparaging comments about. Tattoos, gun pics, marijuana use, etc at 17 point to a thug in training who routinely makes boneheaded decisions. This one cost him his life. White, black, brown, whatever, there are a ton of idiots out there. Seems like a lot of shitty parenting going on in the Martin household. I can't convict GZ with the lack of evidence that was presented. Reasonable doubt has clearly been established. Eyewitness testimony puts TM on top of him. You are way too smart to not see that, so I'm guessing you are running on pure emotion here if you think GZ should be convicted of murder 2. If GZ did shoot TM while not being attacked, then he pulled off the perfect murder. Any comment, doh, about why GZ was so pleased that the police told him there was a video?

AAACCCKKKK...gotta go, she's giving me THE LOOK.

 
Damn, you keep pulling me back in....I decided to check this thread real quick while my girl dries her hair before we go out, but I can't resist responding. She'll probably get pissed that now I'm making her wait....I blame you, doh ;) .

Anyway, are you saying that since we are not jurors that we don't have to have an open mind and evaluate the facts? I haven't found TM guilty of anything. He's not on trial. I can see a POSSIBILITY in which a young hot headed teenager, who has been in fights previously and has been suspended from school a few times, picked a fight with a guy who followed him and who he made disparaging comments about. Tattoos, gun pics, marijuana use, etc at 17 point to a thug in training who routinely makes boneheaded decisions. This one cost him his life. White, black, brown, whatever, there are a ton of idiots out there. Seems like a lot of shitty parenting going on in the Martin household. I can't convict GZ with the lack of evidence that was presented. Reasonable doubt has clearly been established. Eyewitness testimony puts TM on top of him. You are way too smart to not see that, so I'm guessing you are running on pure emotion here if you think GZ should be convicted of murder 2. If GZ did shoot TM while not being attacked, then he pulled off the perfect murder. Any comment, doh, about why GZ was so pleased that the police told him there was a video?

AAACCCKKKK...gotta go, she's giving me THE LOOK.
Tattoos, gun pics and marijuana use at 17 only point to being 17, sorry. In some parts of the country guns are so popular that this wouldn't even be enough to tell you whether it was a girl or a guy, much less whether it was a choirboy or a "thug in training" or the person's nationality. Let's just deal with the facts: a caucasian man saw a black kid (the age that Zimmerman might have thought Martin was is immaterial) walking in his neighborhood. He called the police, then against police advisement got his loaded weapon with bullet chambered and followed the kid agressively (I am qualifying that simply by the fact that he left his car, which is clearly escalation on his part). The kid ended up shot to death. If you disagree that any of what I've said are facts, please let me know. Given those facts, there is nothing that suggests that this man should be given the benefit of any doubt. Do you think that he acted reasonably at any time? Please enlighten me.

So many people feel the need to protect people that they identify with in some way. I don't think that Zimmerman's actions reflect on his race, just on people who think as he does and would do the same things. Are you trying to justify his actions because you agree with them or because you are afraid that you will be condemned unfairly through his deeds?

 
Just to clarify the tattoo issue: Martin's mother testified in court earlier today. She mentioned he had two tattoos: One of praying hands with his grandmother's name circling them, and another of his mother's name. Truly the ink of a violent murderer in-training  :roll:

 
Tattoos, gun pics and marijuana use at 17 only point to being 17, sorry. In some parts of the country guns are so popular that this wouldn't even be enough to tell you whether it was a girl or a guy, much less whether it was a choirboy or a "thug in training" or the person's nationality. Let's just deal with the facts: a caucasian man saw a black kid (the age that Zimmerman might have thought Martin was is immaterial) walking in his neighborhood. He called the police, then against police advisement got his loaded weapon with bullet chambered and followed the kid agressively (I am qualifying that simply by the fact that he left his car, which is clearly escalation on his part). The kid ended up shot to death. If you disagree that any of what I've said are facts, please let me know. Given those facts, there is nothing that suggests that this man should be given the benefit of any doubt. Do you think that he acted reasonably at any time? Please enlighten me.

So many people feel the need to protect people that they identify with in some way. I don't think that Zimmerman's actions reflect on his race, just on people who think as he does and would do the same things. Are you trying to justify his actions because you agree with them or because you are afraid that you will be condemned unfairly through his deeds?
I know plenty of 17 year olds that your statement doesn't qualify. Marijuana is illegal (as stupid as that is) and shows a disregard for the law when used. Tattoos before 18 represents terrible parenting to me(and just idiocy afterwards ;) ). It doesn't matter what the tattoos are of, you are allowing a minor to place permanent images on their body. At what age is the brain fully developed in a male? As far as GZ acting reasonably, yes I do believe he did. He was the neighborhood watch captain in an area that was experiencing breakins. He saw an individual that he didn't recognize who was acting suspiciously. He called the non emergency number as instructed by the police. The dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that", perhaps in the future they will word it as more of a command, but GZ still did nothing illegal by exiting his car and following TM.His gun possession was totally legal and Constitutionally protected. He wanted to help his neighborhood if possible. I wish more people were as socially active. So up to this point I have no problem with either GZ or TM's actions(unless he was on private property looking in windows). We don't know what happened next exactly. If GZ grabbed TM then got punched and knocked to the ground and mounted, is it still self defense? If TM hit GZ first and then mounted him, Self defense? Travon was also 5'11" with a hoodie on. I think you calling him a kid COULD be argued. Look at his most recent pics, NOT the MSNBC ones. And GZ is GIVEN reasonable doubt by the LAW, no matter what you think. If it is possible that TM, who has been in previous fights, attacked GZ and mounted him, then GZ did what is legal. No racial components even matter to the LAW(hopefully....) I don't need to protect GZ, eyewitness testimony, a lie detector test, and the rest of the evidence protects him plenty. What evidence has you convinced that he is guilty? Step back from the inflammatory racial rants and just view the given evidence.....

 
"Speeding is illegal (as stupid as that is) and shows a disregard for the law when used."

I regret engaging you most times but I am honestly trying to get you to understand slightly restating your opinion and using CAPS are not arguments. You consistently twist things while urging others to be objective

The guy shot and killed the other side of the story, reiterating things could have went down like he said is not a defense. 

Also "neighborhood watch" isn't law enforcement, they aren't regulated and the training is often nonexistent (note I am not even engaging the title of "captain" or whether he was "on duty" that night)

The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch which are the parent organizations of thousands of watch programs states Zimmerman was not a part of a registered watch program and that going around armed and chasing people is a violation of the core guidelines of any group as they are not vigilantes. 

 
Step back from the inflammatory racial rants and just view the given evidence.....
You're going to have to show me where I had an inflammatory racial rant.

I know plenty of 17 year olds that your statement doesn't qualify. Marijuana is illegal (as stupid as that is) and shows a disregard for the law when used. Tattoos before 18 represents terrible parenting to me(and just idiocy afterwards ;) ). It doesn't matter what the tattoos are of, you are allowing a minor to place permanent images on their body. At what age is the brain fully developed in a male?
And my point is that tattoos and marijuana are staples of 17 year old life at every level of society and don't give any indication of a teenager's character. It just shows that they are, in fact, teenagers. Making bad decisions and flaunting the law come with the territory. Underage drinking is also illegal and more dangerous than smoking marijuana. I know plenty of 17 year olds from all racial backgrounds who have no tattoos and don't drink or use other drugs. I was one myself and can still proudly claim that I haven't done any of those things now that I'm twice that age. That doesn't change the fact that that behavior is common in American teenagers of any race. But I fully agree with you that there are a lot of bad parents all over America that allow their children to do some or all of those things. I'm sure there are plenty in the neighborhood that Zimmerman lived in.

As far as GZ acting reasonably, yes I do believe he did. He was the neighborhood watch captain in an area that was experiencing breakins. He saw an individual that he didn't recognize who was acting suspiciously. He called the non emergency number as instructed by the police. The dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that", perhaps in the future they will word it as more of a command, but GZ still did nothing illegal by exiting his car and following TM.His gun possession was totally legal and Constitutionally protected. He wanted to help his neighborhood if possible. I wish more people were as socially active.
In what way is walking in a neighborhood with a hoodie on "acting suspiciously"? Let's just be honest. That's all that anyone knojws that Martin did. What you're really saying is that (this is from Zimmerman's point of view, I'm not trying to claim that you believe this thinking yourself) Zimmerman say a Black male in his neighborhood that he didn't recognize and thought that was suspicious. There is a leap being made here on his part that it is impossible to honestly deny is anything other than racial. No one believes for a second that he would have done all that he did if he had seen the prototypical young Joe Montana high school quarterback in a letterman's jacket that he didn't recognize strolling down his block. Martin was hardly walking along displaying all his tattoos and gun pics while taking hits from a bong, which would clearly broadcast that he was a thug-in-training according to you. If you disagree, please tell me exactly what made Martin suspicious enough that Zimmerman needed to arm himself and approach and confrot Martin even after notifying the police. Socially active is certainly one way to describe that behavior. Not what I would choose, but to each his own, I guess. And if getting tattoos and smoking marijuana count as things that "point to a thug in training who routinely makes boneheaded decisions", then what does getting a loaded gun, chambering a round and chasing someone just because you don't recognize them qualify as? You claim it makes him an exemplary citizen driven by a heroic sense of civic duty and that more people should follow in his footsteps.

So up to this point I have no problem with either GZ or TM's actions(unless he was on private property looking in windows). We don't know what happened next exactly. If GZ grabbed TM then got punched and knocked to the ground and mounted, is it still self defense? If TM hit GZ first and then mounted him, Self defense? Travon was also 5'11" with a hoodie on. I think you calling him a kid COULD be argued. Look at his most recent pics, NOT the MSNBC ones. And GZ is GIVEN reasonable doubt by the LAW, no matter what you think. If it is possible that TM, who has been in previous fights, attacked GZ and mounted him, then GZ did what is legal. No racial components even matter to the LAW(hopefully....) I don't need to protect GZ, eyewitness testimony, a lie detector test, and the rest of the evidence protects him plenty. What evidence has you convinced that he is guilty?
Whether Martin was 17 or 37 makes no difference. I don't care if he looked like Michael Clark Duncan. None of that is justification for Zimmerman's irrational actions, legal or otherwise. Zimmerman's decisions prior to the confrontation already show that the level of hostility and aggression he displayed was far beyond was is reasonably warranted. This goes a very long way toward establishing ill intent. Given that all anyone except him and God know is that a scuffle ensued and the person he was chasing was killed by his hand with the gun that he brought, his obvious intent and stereotyping of the victim are enough sway things toward beyond a resonable doubt for me.

Again, I say beware feeling the urge to defend someone because you relate to him because you share characteristics that you believe others may use to try to smear you with this one man's actions. The people who say "See! This is what all White people are like!" are full of shit and can easily be rebutted. Don't drag yourself down to this guy's level due to misplaced ideals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

Self Defense

Self-defense is a defense to certain criminal charges as well as to some civil claims. Under both Criminal Law and Tort Law, self-defense is commonly asserted in cases of Homicide, Assault and Battery, and other crimes involving the attempted use of violence against an individual. Statutory and case law governing self-defense is generally the same in tort and criminal law.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

Courts and tribunals have historically accepted self-defense as a defense to a legal action. As a matter of public policy, the physical force or violence associated with self-defense is considered an acceptable response to aggression.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/when-is-the-prosecution-g_b_3536738.html?utm_hp_ref=trayvon-martin

A retired judge's opinion-

"I know I have been out of the law for a while, but it would be news to me if a defendant could go around proclaiming he was innocent to friends and relatives and then they could come in and verify it based upon his statements to them. Usually the government presents statements by the defendant that contain confessions and admissions, not ones that exonerate him and support his defense. They produce witnesses who contradict the defendant's version of events, not those who confirm it. Maybe I am missing something here, and the prosecution has a strategy that has eluded me. I suspect that they are going to take all of these repetitive self-serving statements and cull them to find some discrepancies -- but to me that is as lame a strategy as defense counsel's opening joke. The government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense. The story in support of self-defense has been told so many times in this trial by the prosecution that I would not be surprised to hear at the conclusion of the prosecution's case: "The Defense Rests," because the defense may believe that the prosecution has more than adequately proved rather disproved the defense."

Atreyue, I was referring to rants by the likes of Al Sharpton, not yourself. Sorry for the confusion. GZ's statement is that TM was looking into houses as he "casually" walked in the rain. Several breakins had occurred. Was there racial profiling going on? Probably, but GZ's actions were not illegal. As far as "one in the chamber"-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbIC0RPBRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_nBU11kulo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTXAJhSnFgE

GZ might have had more serious injuries if he did not have a bullet in the chamber.

Are you saying that the eye witness was lying when he saw TM on top? Are you saying that there is no way possible that TM punched GZ and then mounted him, making him fear for his life? If it is possible, and with TM's history of fighting, it even sounds probable, then reasonable doubt exists.

I identify with GZ in no way really. I don't own a gun, I am not in a neighborhood watch, I'm not half Hispanic....I just believe the evidence is not there to support a guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt.

 
People are noticing the pains you are taking not to respond to anything with substance. FYI

GZ's statement is that TM was looking into houses as he "casually" walked in the rain.
A) There is zero reason for those quote marks

B) Zimmerman has a very good motive to lie.

C) Zimmerman is on medication that causes aggression and makes you prone to memory loss

D) Zimmerman has been arrested before for domestic violence and assaulting a police officer.

Zimmerman's version of events is not reasonable.

It sounds like something a half-bright person with ample time would make up. He had no authority to try and detain Martin, so even though there is no denying he followed Martin; Zimmerman then states he got out of the car to identify a street (in a neighborhood he ostensibly knew so well anyone he didn't recognize was suspicious) AND was leaving when Martin engages him while shouting he was going to kill him.

Meanwhile Zimmerman did not even go to the hospital for his supposedly life threatening wounds.

GZ might have had more serious injuries if he did not have a bullet in the chamber

Using this "logic" Martin should have had a gun and shot first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
a caucasian man saw a black kid
I agree with just about everything you said, but please note that GZ isn't white, despite his multiple claims that he is. I think the fact that he's been lying about his ethnicity touches on what could be a stroke of denial or self-hate or some dislike/hate for non-whites.

 
People are noticing the pains you are taking not to respond to anything with substance. FYI

A) there is zero reason for those quote marks

B) Zimmerman has a very good motive to lie.

Zimmerman's version of events sounds like something a half-bright person with ample time would make up. He had no authority to try and detain Marin, so even though there is no denying he followed him Zimmerman then states he was leaving when Martin engages him while shouting he was going to kill him.

GZ might have had more serious injuries if he did not have a bullet in the chamber

Using this "logic" Martin should have had a gun and shot first.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/22/us/21george-zimmerman-transcript.html?_r=0

Those quote marks denote a word taken directly from GZ's police statement. Keep trying, buddy! Read the statement. It was written on the same night that the shooting occurred. Ample time indeed.....And why should TM have shot GZ? Was he injured like GZ? Did an eyewitness place GZ on top of TM pummeling him?

As far as substance, what have you presented? I gave you a retired judges opinion that the prosecution has made a shitty case, several videos explaining why carrying a legal weapon with a bullet in the chamber is best for self defense, and words taken from GZ's official police statement. All I've seen from your side is that GZ was totally in the wrong because??? And he should have just taken his ass whipping without defending himself because??? And the legal rules of reasonable doubt don't apply in this case because??? I'll ask you once again, bluntly, do you believe that their is no possibility that TM attacked GZ first, knocked him to the ground, mounted him and made him fear for his life?

 
So what does casually mean in this context, should he have been walking formally in a tuxedo?



As far as substance, what have you presented?
I added a bit but I doubt you read it carefully the first time. Nor did you read my preceding post (maybe you did since you no longer bring up the neighborhood watch),



I gave you
Speaking of your abuse of language you are confusing substance with A) an opinion B) Zimmerman's side of the story (again) C) complete disregard of any definition of self defense. No amount of question marks will wall paper over shoddy arguments.



do you believe that their is no possibility that TM attacked GZ first, knocked him to the ground, mounted him and made him fear for his life?
There is no reasonable possibility that things happened the way Zimmerman said they did, from the inconsistencies on how and why the conflict (i.e. the pursuit and fight ) started to the paucity of life threatening injuries.

You are simultaneously "arguing" we should treat Zimmerman with a deference on what is reasonable doubt while not critically engaging whether he should have his life threatened (which is comically subjective).

 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

"It was part of their upbringing to know that there are people in need, people more in need than themselves," said Post, a Peruvian immigrant who lived with the Zimmermans for a time.

Post recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and Dawn. "It wasn't only white or only Hispanic or only black - it was mixed," she said.

Zimmerman's maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since 1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman's childhood. For several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.

They were part of the household for years, until they were old enough to be on their own," Post said.

In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office, Donnelly said.

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men.

Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police.

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.

Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.

The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.

Please read the whole article, I tried to give the highlights. It defangs the whole GZ as racist argument, details how black teenagers were seen robbing the neighborhood several times, how GZ called the police before and the suspect got away before their arrival,(GZ tells the dispatcher "I don't want to approach him, personally."), and provides many other insights into his past. A police officer told him to get a gun. He partnered with a black guy to form his business, etc etc etc.....

 
You are willing to say absolutely anything to avoid making an actual argument aren't you?

I noticed it in the healthcare thread also.

 
You are willing to say absolutely anything to avoid making an actual argument aren't you?

I noticed it in the healthcare thread also.
You read all of that article and replied in less than 3 minutes?!? I'm kinda done with you if you won't even read my side. And I never gave up the watch part, he was asked by the homeowners assoc. to head it up. Ill intent (as well as racial profiling) is definitely thrown out after reading the facts that numerous residents saw black males committing the break ins, one of which GZ reported on Feb. 2 looking into windows but the police arrived too late(could that be why GZ followed TM even though he stated in that recorded call from Feb 2nd that he didn't want to confront the suspect?). So GZ had a description to look out for. I think you are a joke if you continue to say that I am not making any valid arguments. You seem to defend TM to the death(heheheeheheheee) did you know him? If not, how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that his temper and demeanor were such that he would not start a fight? (even though he had been in previous fights.) The prosecution presented no evidence that proved GZ did not kill TM in self defense. Case closed.

 
You read all of that article and replied in less than 3 minutes?!? I'm kinda done with you if you won't even read my side. And I never gave up the watch part, he was asked by the homeowners assoc. to head it up. Ill intent (as well as racial profiling) is definitely thrown out after reading the facts that numerous residents saw black males committing the break ins, one of which GZ reported on Feb. 2 looking into windows but the police arrived too late(could that be why GZ followed TM even though he stated in that recorded call from Feb 2nd that he didn't want to confront the suspect?). So GZ had a description to look out for. I think you are a joke if you continue to say that I am not making any valid arguments. You seem to defend TM to the death(heheheeheheheee) did you know him? If not, how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that his temper and demeanor were such that he would not start a fight? (even though he had been in previous fights.) The prosecution presented no evidence that proved GZ did not kill TM in self defense. Case closed.
I'm almost 100% sure that the burglars were caught, he appointed himself as captain of the neighborhood watch, Zimmerman made MANY calls about black males in the neighborhood, Zimmerman was 100% wrong with his suspicions about Martin, and set in motion the events that eventually led to him killing a kid. There is no proof that Martin was engaged in many, if any, violent altercations(unless you trust those fucks on Stormfront) whereas Zimmerman has a long recorded and official history of it.

Also, the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt when all they need to do is make the jury doubt Zimmerman's account in order to find him guilty of manslaughter, which is a lesser charge included in the murder 2 charge. With the testimony from Dr. Bao, the county medical examiner, it's not looking good for Zimmerman.

Btw, you know how you said that if the trajectory of the shot was straight on and not at an angle that Zimmerman is screwed? Well, looks like I was wrong and the ME was able to determine that it was a straight shot to the chest and wasn't at an angle. Any comment on that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atreyue, I was referring to rants by the likes of Al Sharpton, not yourself. Sorry for the confusion. GZ's statement is that TM was looking into houses as he "casually" walked in the rain. Several breakins had occurred. Was there racial profiling going on? Probably, but GZ's actions were not illegal. As far as "one in the chamber"-

GZ might have had more serious injuries if he did not have a bullet in the chamber.

Are you saying that the eye witness was lying when he saw TM on top? Are you saying that there is no way possible that TM punched GZ and then mounted him, making him fear for his life? If it is possible, and with TM's history of fighting, it even sounds probable, then reasonable doubt exists.

I identify with GZ in no way really. I don't own a gun, I am not in a neighborhood watch, I'm not half Hispanic....I just believe the evidence is not there to support a guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt.
It's been a while since I posted in here, so I just want to state for the record that Al Sharpton is a piece of shit scumbag who makes me ashamed that we share the same skin color.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm trying very hard not to read into things too much, so if I don't address something that's probably the reason (although if you ask my opinion on something specific, I will try my best to give an unbiased one). I appreciate your acknowlegdement of the likelihood that Zimmerman was racial profiling. I do want to point out thought that profiliong is something done by the police. When regular citizens without the power and responsibility of police officers do it, I don't think it's over-reaching to call that just racism. I don't believe Zimmerman's claim that Martin was going up to houses and looking in the windows to case them. There is a huge difference betwen looking at a house as you walk by it and deliberately trying to look in the windows.

As far as the bullet in the chamber goes, it all speaks to intent. Having a CCW for a regular citizen is supposed to be about self-protection. You are carrying a weapon just in case someone attacks you. You don't follow and harrass people and then get to claim self defense after you already made the pre-meditated decision to bring your gun to a conflict you initiated. Imagine if you or I were to follow a woman by car and then grab a loaded and primed weapon and follow her on foot for several blocks, forcing her to run and hide. After she hid, you searched until you found her again and then continued to stalk her. Does the fact that you haven't broken any laws yet really make your behavior ok? Can't it be reasonably argued that she was only defending herself when she subsequently turns on you and pepper sprays you before you can do whatever you armed yourself and followed her to do? Especially after running and hiding proved ineffective? After you shoot and kill her once you realize she won't be an easy target should others defend your actions by saying that she dressed like a slut so she deserved to be treated like trash? Should we also say thank goodness that you thought ahead and brought your gun so that you were able to end that bitch's life after she had the temerity to stand up for herself? There is no difference between these two situations. Finding out after the fact that she had 2 baby daddies doesn't change anything. Nor would it make it any less your fault if she called you a creepy pervert to the person she was on the phone with while you were stalking her. There may be reasonable doubt that your original intention was to kill her, but there is no reasonable doubt that you thought it was a possibility when you decided on your general course of action.

 
bread's done
Back
Top