Zimmerman

[jtpr312]

Sure bud.
He deserved be shot then.

He deserved to be shot because he acted like a typical n&**^r and attacked what he thought was a fat, helpless, out of shape white dude. Surprise, the dude had a gun. Screw trayvon, he was a thug and he got what he asked for.

I am sorry Martin doesn't fit your stereotype. And you have no proof he attacked Zimmerman first, a deranged man who spent way too much time playing wannabe cop.

Initial police reports, amubulance attendant statements, and at least two witness statements seem to disagree with you and agree that trayvon attacked Zimmerman. As for trayvon not fitting my stereotype, of course he does, he's lives in a single parent household, he smokes dope, he was kicked out of school for dope, he belonged to a gang, he had gold teeth and attacked a white guy he thought he could take. Seems to fit the definitive stereotype of the jigaboo.

 

[Luissa]

The community is still private property, ie private roads. There is more than one unit to a building, ie grass between buildings is communal property.
And a kid cutting between houses, which probably happens often, completely warrants a deranged man following him and shooting him.

You're just ignorant aren't you? Let me say it slowly for you. e v e n i n a p r i v a t e g a t e d c o m m u n i t y t h e r e a r e P U B L I C U S E w a l k w a y s t h a t
A L L r e s i d e n t s c a n u s e , and there are P R I V A T E portions of the community like your yards and the areas between your house and your neighbor's house. As for the rest of your crap, that's all it is, crap. Here is a fact son, statistics show that a large portion of crimes are committed by young black males, so when you see a young black male, wearing a hoodie, creeping between house and through yards, anyone with half a brain may get suspicious. As for Zimmerman being deranged, I have heard of no evidence that he was ever diagnosed with any type of mental disorder, which in the state of Fla would disqualify him from buying and/or carrying a handgun, he was well within his rights to follow the suspicious looking young black male and if said young black male would have gone on about his business and gone home, instead of cutting back and attacking Zimmerman, he'd be alive today.

Did I say people in the community couldn't use the roads, retard? Do you understand the difference between private property and public property?
The roads, the grass etc are private property but are for communal use.
The grass between buildings is not the owner if the town houses private property it is the property of the development, and for communal use.

Ask yourself this moron, does the government own the development? Nope, therefore they are private roads for the homeowners use.

I had no idea that would be so hard to understand?

 

[Luissa]

Sure bud.
He deserved be shot then.

He deserved to be shot because he acted like a typical n&**^r and attacked what he thought was a fat, helpless, out of shape white dude. Surprise, the dude had a gun. Screw trayvon, he was a thug and he got what he asked for.

We don't need jerks like you explaining the details of this case. When you talk like that you're just handing the bleeding hearts an excuse to ignore the facts of the case and assume that Zimmerman was racist like you.

I don't assume he was a racist, I assume he was a hot head wannabe cop who followed an innocent boy and shot him. When he was faced with murder charges he lied his ass off.

 

[jtpr312]

The community is still private property, ie private roads. There is more than one unit to a building, ie grass between buildings is communal property.
And a kid cutting between houses, which probably happens often, completely warrants a deranged man following him and shooting him.

You're just ignorant aren't you? Let me say it slowly for you. e v e n i n a p r i v a t e g a t e d c o m m u n i t y t h e r e a r e P U B L I C U S E w a l k w a y s t h a t
A L L r e s i d e n t s c a n u s e , and there are P R I V A T E portions of the community like your yards and the areas between your house and your neighbor's house. As for the rest of your crap, that's all it is, crap. Here is a fact son, statistics show that a large portion of crimes are committed by young black males, so when you see a young black male, wearing a hoodie, creeping between house and through yards, anyone with half a brain may get suspicious. As for Zimmerman being deranged, I have heard of no evidence that he was ever diagnosed with any type of mental disorder, which in the state of Fla would disqualify him from buying and/or carrying a handgun, he was well within his rights to follow the suspicious looking young black male and if said young black male would have gone on about his business and gone home, instead of cutting back and attacking Zimmerman, he'd be alive today.

Did I say people in the community couldn't use the roads, retard? Do you understand the difference between private property and public property?
The roads, the grass etc are private property but are for communal use.
The grass between buildings is not the owner if the town houses private property it is the property of the development, and for communal use.

Ask yourself this moron, does the government own the development? Nope, therefore they are private roads for the homeowners use.

I had no idea that would be so hard to understand?

Now I see the problem, you lack even basic vocabulary skills.
Public-
1a : exposed to general view : open b : well-known, prominent c : perceptible, material
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general : universal b : general, popular
4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <public television>


Public meaning it is allowed for all THE RESIDENTS OF THE GATED COMMUNITY to use, such as roads, parks, streets, etc, the gated community does not own your yard, or the grass around your home, therefore it is PRIVATE property that even other residents in the gated community are not allowed to tresspass on. By your asinine logic, anyone in the gated community can use your living room.

 

[boedicca]

I hope he wins his lawsuit against those lying liars at NBC.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because Martin was a vicious thug trespassing on someone else's property. Calling Trevor Martin a "child" is the ultimate in stretching the truth. How many "children" do you know of who have gold plated teeth?

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

So we bow to terrorist threats and ignore the law. Let mob rule dictate everything.
Sounds like the way an anarchist would want it.

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

 

[Luissa]

You're just ignorant aren't you? Let me say it slowly for you. e v e n i n a p r i v a t e g a t e d c o m m u n i t y t h e r e a r e P U B L I C U S E w a l k w a y s t h a t
A L L r e s i d e n t s c a n u s e , and there are P R I V A T E portions of the community like your yards and the areas between your house and your neighbor's house. As for the rest of your crap, that's all it is, crap. Here is a fact son, statistics show that a large portion of crimes are committed by young black males, so when you see a young black male, wearing a hoodie, creeping between house and through yards, anyone with half a brain may get suspicious. As for Zimmerman being deranged, I have heard of no evidence that he was ever diagnosed with any type of mental disorder, which in the state of Fla would disqualify him from buying and/or carrying a handgun, he was well within his rights to follow the suspicious looking young black male and if said young black male would have gone on about his business and gone home, instead of cutting back and attacking Zimmerman, he'd be alive today.

Did I say people in the community couldn't use the roads, retard? Do you understand the difference between private property and public property?
The roads, the grass etc are private property but are for communal use.
The grass between buildings is not the owner if the town houses private property it is the property of the development, and for communal use.

Ask yourself this moron, does the government own the development? Nope, therefore they are private roads for the homeowners use.

I had no idea that would be so hard to understand?

Now I see the problem, you lack even basic vocabulary skills.
Public-
1a : exposed to general view : open b : well-known, prominent c : perceptible, material
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general : universal b : general, popular
4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <public television>


Public meaning it is allowed for all THE RESIDENTS OF THE GATED COMMUNITY to use, such as roads, parks, streets, etc, the gated community does not own your yard, or the grass around your home, therefore it is PRIVATE property that even other residents in the gated community are not allowed to tresspass on. By your asinine logic, anyone in the gated community can use your living room.

Hey **** tard, stop being retarded.

"public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=public+property


Do I have to draw it for you so it is easier to understand?
The roads, the community is owned by private owners, therefore private property owned by something other than the government. That is why it says PRIVATE PROPERTY when you enter a gated community. You claimed they were public roads to begin, they were not. They are private roads that people in the community can use, just like the grass areas. And their are multiple townhouses in a building, therefore it would be easy to assume that between each building is not owned by the townhouse owner.
And retard, they own a patio that looks out onto a community green area with a side walk. Do you understand how these communities work? Obviously not. You buy the townhouse and that is it, that is all you own.
The rest is owned my a PRIVATE company.
Here is a picture for better understanding, smart one.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#miuv=0


God you are retarded.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Following someone is not "stalking" him. The this is the most accepted definition of stalking:

"A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc."

Nothing Zimmerman did fit that definition. The record is clear that Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch and observed someone he knew didn't reside in the area. Since there had been a number of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Zimmerman called the police. So far, nothing illegal, in fact so far Zimmerman is doing everything that a good man would do.

No disagreement there.



Actually there is. A time distance analysis of the dispatcher call based on where Zimmerman parked his truck to the point of confrontation shows that there is no way Zimmerman could have arrived at the point of confrontation unless he had continued to proceed away from the truck AFTER the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin. The dispatcher heard Zimmerman exit the truck and heard the change in voice as Zimmerman changed from speaking in the truck to walking/running outside the truck and immediately question Zimmerman.

Then of course there was Zimmerman in the reenactment video the next morning were he even says he moved away from the truck.

So both time/distance analysis showed he moved away and he said he moved away.




Correct, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached from behind that night (audio tapes). That changed the next morning to Martin approached from in front (Video Reenactment). In both cases Zimmerman claims that Martin challenged him.

However the audio witness claims that it was the male voice she heard on the phone that challenged Martin, not the other way around. Zimmerman, when he made the statements to police that night and did the reenactment the next day didn't know that Martin was on the phone at the time that Zimmerman makes claims about Martins actions.



The forensic evidence ONLY shows that the muzzle of the gun was in close proximity to Martin's hoodie, it does not conclusively prove that Martin was on top. As a matter of fact a forensic examination actually casts doubt as to that situation and at least one eye witness report says that the person on top at the time the gun was fired rose and moved into the light and that person was Zimmerman.

Now as to the forensic evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the state has medical, ballistic and forensic experts testify as to a couple of things:

1. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman "beating him", and as Zimmerman claims, Martin punched him (as reported in the audio tapes) over a dozen times in the face then that is not likely to be a true statement since there was only one "1/8 x 1/4 inch small abrasion on the fourth finger of the left hand" (Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report). I've been in fights before in my younger days, you don't punch someone in a boney mass like the head and end up with only one small scraping of the skin.

2. Zimmerman claims that Martin was on top of him beating his head into the ground, Martin was a little over 6 feet tall, taking into account average arm length and that Martin would have to lean over Zimmerman when straddling him to at various time punch him, cover his mouth and nose with his hands, and grab the side of his head to beat it against the ground - such actions of flexing the arms means the chest of Zimmerman and Martin were in the neighborhood of 18 inches or so between them. The travel path of the bullet was perpendicular to Martins chest right over the heart. That means that Zimmerman would have had to draw his weapon, move it from the right rear hip where his holster was, maneuver it between the bodies, cock the wrist at an unnatural angle (because of the relationship of Martin being at a different angle with respect to Zimmerman) and fire. A more natural movement of the arm/elbow rotation in such a draw and fire scenario would have been for the gun to be placed more to the side of the chest with a upward trajectory.

3. Clearly there was a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin and Martin got a least one good shoot into Zimmerman's face causing the extensive nose bleed in the photo. Zimmerman also claims that Martin placed his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth. A close, external examination of the body is standard procedure for an autopsy, yet the ME makes no mention of any of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands as would be expected if the two conditions were as Zimmerman said (he was bleeding and Martin placed his hands in the blood). In addition forensic analysis returned no Zimmerman DNA from Martin's hands or from the tests conducted on the cuffs of the sweatshirt Martin was wearing. Yet if Martin was putting his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed, there would have been blood.

4. Forensic analysis of both Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's clothing was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Zimmerman claims the firearm was discharged between the two chest of the struggling individuals on the ground and that he was below Martin. There of course was GSR (Gun Shot Residue) on Martins clothes, but there was none on Zimmerman's cloths (neither the chest of his jacket nor the front of the sleeves) as would be expected for the discharge of a firearm in such a close space (between the chests). There would have been GSR blowing back from Martins chest, there would have been GSR expelled out the ejection port, and unburned gunpowder would have fallen due to gravity with Zimmerman below Martin. There was of course GSR on Zimmerman's hands but none on the sleeves (or chest). That implies that the arm of Zimmerman was extended away from the body which would not have been possible with Martin on top at the time of the shooting as Zimmerman's arm would have extended though Martin.




I'm not a "Martin Defender", however I'm not a "Zimmerman Defender" either. Zimmerman has already proven that he is willing to lie to the court if he thinks he will get away with it. What I do however is look at all the evidence to see if it contradicts or supports Zimmerman story.




I agree, it's pretty hard to shoot someone in the chest if they are running away. Of course I've never seen anyone claim that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin had turned and ran.




Now you are making an assumption with incomplete or no evidence. There is no doubt that Martin and Zimmerman were in a struggle, yet you are assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman, it could have very well been the other way around and that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin and the statement of the audio witness contradicts Zimmerman's version of who confronted who.

Martin walked away once and Zimmerman followed in his truck, then Martin ran away and Zimmerman followed on foot - if Martin attempted to leave the third time and Zimmerman then grabbed him, then Martin was defending himself. Which under Florida self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws he had a perfect right to do.

(Not saying there is proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, just saying that just because Zimmerman said Martin punched him first does not also make that true either.)




And neither is walking through a neighborhood when you are a guest of a resident of that neighborhood a crime either.



Zimmerman's actions were not justified if Zimmerman is the one that initiated hostilities, neither legally or morally.




Of course Zimmerman defended himself from his perspective during the struggle, but this is not an "instant" in time incident. Zimmerman took direct action to start the events of that evening including the pursuit of Martin after Martin had fled the area on a dark and rainy night. From Martin's perspective he did not now who this individual was, there was no indication (and Zimmerman has not said at this point) that he called out and identified himself as Neighborhood Watch. From Martin's perspective there was this weird guy pursuing him that he'd tried to get away from through two separate actions and here he was again approaching and confronting him (as per the audio witness).




From the dispatcher call it is clear that Martin "the hot-head" had tried to evade Zimmerman twice. Once by walking away from Zimmerman's truck when Zimmerman stopped near the clubhouse and a second time by running away after Zimmerman had followed him down Twin Trees Lane.

The "hot head" appears to have been Zimmerman interjecting himself in a police matter in direct violation of the training that Neighborhood Watch personnel are given. We are told to observe and report, NOT to attempt to intercede in the event - that is the job of the police.

He resented a White man observing him and decided to teach that White man a lesson. Martin, the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA (Martin's Facebook screen name), sucker-punched Zimmerman, and then straddled him pounding him around the head and shoulders. Zimmerman had no choice but to use deadly force and he did. Zimmerman did not start the fight, Martin did. The NO_LIMIT_NIGGA found out - too late, unfortunately - that there indeed are limits.

And to provide a contrast to an obviously biased evaluation in support of Zimmerman lets turn it around in the other direction.

"George Zimmerman resentful of black people walking through his neighborhood and decided to take the law into his own hands. He called the police for no other reason then this black kid was on his turf. Zimmerman, DATNiggyTB (Zimmerman's MySpace screen name), then chased this kid down grabbing him so he didn't get away like the other black kids a few months before. Which isn't surprising considering that Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer, broke the leg of a woman while he was a bouncer, and received a restraining order for domestic violence. But the kid struggled so Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman is learning there are limits to what a gun toting vigilante can get away with."​

Now, is that stupid? Sure it is. But see how that works from the other perspective?


>>>>

The prosecution will not go into any speculation of the fight with the Medical Examiner.

Of course not, they will call the Medical Examiner to explain the results of the autopsy noting that there was only one small abrasion on one finger of the left hand and then they will probably follow that up with a question as to whether in the Medical Examiners expert opinion (which an ME is) if one small abrasion is consistent with someone punching another person in the head using the same words as Zimmerman which I believe was "over a dozen times" (to paraphrase).

Secondly I can see the prosecution noting for the record that there was no evidence of blood on Martins hands (and later DNA tests) and will then confirm that the ME followed standard procedures and completed a detailed exterior examination prior to the internal examination. If standard procedures were followed they will note the inconsistency of Zimmerman's statement that Martins had covered his nose and mouth after punch Zimmerman in the face "over a dozen times" (to paraphrase).

The lack of injuries to Martin's hands and the lack of blood/DNA on Martins hands and cuffs are not speculation.

They have to have 100% concrete proof that Martin was being attacked by Zimmerman to offer anything on the fight. If they do not and go into it they are screwing themselves and created the doubt themselves. Maybe, could have, might have been has been explained by me in great detail before. Prosecutors never do that. Defense lawyers offer that as the burden of proof is on the prosecution 100% and the defense has to prove nothing.

That might be true if the intent was to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman, but it wouldn't be.

What it would do is cast doubt on Zimmerman's story and place before the Jury that Zimmerman lied.

Zimmerman IS NOT being charged for disobeying a police command. So why do you keep bringing up...

Please go back and look, I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else that brought it up.

All your talk of "took direct action" and "from Martin's perspective" is all speculation.

True, and if you go back and read what I was responding to it was responding to speculation that Martin HAD to have attacked Zimmerman.

Presently there is no conclusive proof that has been released to the public as part of discovery that shows who attacked whom. The only "evidence" that, at this point, likely to be introduced will be Zimmerman's statements to the police and the video reenactment and the prosecution will be introducing physical and forensic evidence that undermines that story.

Now I happen to agree with you on many issues, not all of them, but speculation is not allowed at trial by any witness the prosecution puts up and none of them can testify in any way "Well, if it happened this way, if Martin had done this as it appeared it may have, since Zimmerman had pursued and probably did not identify himself" none of that is allowed as all the forensic evidence introduced is given as it is, as it lays. The determiner of fact is the jury as they are the ones that determine the facts.

Please go back and read my posts, my "speculation" here on an internet message board is used to counterpoint "speculation" that it was Martin that HAD to have attacked Zimmerman.

There is no physical or forensic evidence that supports that. There is a "dead zone", if you will, between the end of the recording for the dispatcher call and the first neighbor witnesses coming on line. Between those two events the ONLY evidence that exists is the girlfriend hearing a mail voice confront Martin (which disagrees with Zimmerman's version).

And you are absolutley right, it will be up to the jury to weight the forensic evidence against Zimmerman's story.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Initial police reports, amubulance attendant statements, and at least two witness statements seem to disagree with you and agree that trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

Police - No policeman claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Witnesses - No witness claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Ambulance Attendant - No ambulance attendant claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.



>>>>

 

[paperview]

Initial police reports, amubulance attendant statements, and at least two witness statements seem to disagree with you and agree that trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

Police - No policeman claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Witnesses - No witness claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Ambulance Attendant - No ambulance attendant claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.



>>>>

Facts. suck.

Why you be bringing that stuff here?

:/

 

[Gadawg73]

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

So we bow to terrorist threats and ignore the law. Let mob rule dictate everything.
Sounds like the way an anarchist would want it.

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

So you do not have a driver's license, no car insurance, you do not obey red lights and stop signs and obey no law.
You are full of shit as usual.

 

[Gadawg73]

Initial police reports, amubulance attendant statements, and at least two witness statements seem to disagree with you and agree that trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

Police - No policeman claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Witnesses - No witness claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.

Ambulance Attendant - No ambulance attendant claims to have seen Martin attack Zimmerman.



>>>>

One eye witness has Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him.
Now we do not know who threw THE first blow but there is that witness.
But most people on this board believe Zimmerman is guilty just because Martin was killed.
Ignorance of the law is rampant here.

 

[Gadawg73]

No disagreement there.



Actually there is. A time distance analysis of the dispatcher call based on where Zimmerman parked his truck to the point of confrontation shows that there is no way Zimmerman could have arrived at the point of confrontation unless he had continued to proceed away from the truck AFTER the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin. The dispatcher heard Zimmerman exit the truck and heard the change in voice as Zimmerman changed from speaking in the truck to walking/running outside the truck and immediately question Zimmerman.

Then of course there was Zimmerman in the reenactment video the next morning were he even says he moved away from the truck.

So both time/distance analysis showed he moved away and he said he moved away.




Correct, Zimmerman claimed that Martin approached from behind that night (audio tapes). That changed the next morning to Martin approached from in front (Video Reenactment). In both cases Zimmerman claims that Martin challenged him.

However the audio witness claims that it was the male voice she heard on the phone that challenged Martin, not the other way around. Zimmerman, when he made the statements to police that night and did the reenactment the next day didn't know that Martin was on the phone at the time that Zimmerman makes claims about Martins actions.



The forensic evidence ONLY shows that the muzzle of the gun was in close proximity to Martin's hoodie, it does not conclusively prove that Martin was on top. As a matter of fact a forensic examination actually casts doubt as to that situation and at least one eye witness report says that the person on top at the time the gun was fired rose and moved into the light and that person was Zimmerman.

Now as to the forensic evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the state has medical, ballistic and forensic experts testify as to a couple of things:

1. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman "beating him", and as Zimmerman claims, Martin punched him (as reported in the audio tapes) over a dozen times in the face then that is not likely to be a true statement since there was only one "1/8 x 1/4 inch small abrasion on the fourth finger of the left hand" (Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report). I've been in fights before in my younger days, you don't punch someone in a boney mass like the head and end up with only one small scraping of the skin.

2. Zimmerman claims that Martin was on top of him beating his head into the ground, Martin was a little over 6 feet tall, taking into account average arm length and that Martin would have to lean over Zimmerman when straddling him to at various time punch him, cover his mouth and nose with his hands, and grab the side of his head to beat it against the ground - such actions of flexing the arms means the chest of Zimmerman and Martin were in the neighborhood of 18 inches or so between them. The travel path of the bullet was perpendicular to Martins chest right over the heart. That means that Zimmerman would have had to draw his weapon, move it from the right rear hip where his holster was, maneuver it between the bodies, cock the wrist at an unnatural angle (because of the relationship of Martin being at a different angle with respect to Zimmerman) and fire. A more natural movement of the arm/elbow rotation in such a draw and fire scenario would have been for the gun to be placed more to the side of the chest with a upward trajectory.

3. Clearly there was a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin and Martin got a least one good shoot into Zimmerman's face causing the extensive nose bleed in the photo. Zimmerman also claims that Martin placed his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth. A close, external examination of the body is standard procedure for an autopsy, yet the ME makes no mention of any of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands as would be expected if the two conditions were as Zimmerman said (he was bleeding and Martin placed his hands in the blood). In addition forensic analysis returned no Zimmerman DNA from Martin's hands or from the tests conducted on the cuffs of the sweatshirt Martin was wearing. Yet if Martin was putting his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed, there would have been blood.

4. Forensic analysis of both Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's clothing was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Zimmerman claims the firearm was discharged between the two chest of the struggling individuals on the ground and that he was below Martin. There of course was GSR (Gun Shot Residue) on Martins clothes, but there was none on Zimmerman's cloths (neither the chest of his jacket nor the front of the sleeves) as would be expected for the discharge of a firearm in such a close space (between the chests). There would have been GSR blowing back from Martins chest, there would have been GSR expelled out the ejection port, and unburned gunpowder would have fallen due to gravity with Zimmerman below Martin. There was of course GSR on Zimmerman's hands but none on the sleeves (or chest). That implies that the arm of Zimmerman was extended away from the body which would not have been possible with Martin on top at the time of the shooting as Zimmerman's arm would have extended though Martin.




I'm not a "Martin Defender", however I'm not a "Zimmerman Defender" either. Zimmerman has already proven that he is willing to lie to the court if he thinks he will get away with it. What I do however is look at all the evidence to see if it contradicts or supports Zimmerman story.




I agree, it's pretty hard to shoot someone in the chest if they are running away. Of course I've never seen anyone claim that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin had turned and ran.




Now you are making an assumption with incomplete or no evidence. There is no doubt that Martin and Zimmerman were in a struggle, yet you are assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman, it could have very well been the other way around and that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin and the statement of the audio witness contradicts Zimmerman's version of who confronted who.

Martin walked away once and Zimmerman followed in his truck, then Martin ran away and Zimmerman followed on foot - if Martin attempted to leave the third time and Zimmerman then grabbed him, then Martin was defending himself. Which under Florida self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws he had a perfect right to do.

(Not saying there is proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, just saying that just because Zimmerman said Martin punched him first does not also make that true either.)




And neither is walking through a neighborhood when you are a guest of a resident of that neighborhood a crime either.



Zimmerman's actions were not justified if Zimmerman is the one that initiated hostilities, neither legally or morally.




Of course Zimmerman defended himself from his perspective during the struggle, but this is not an "instant" in time incident. Zimmerman took direct action to start the events of that evening including the pursuit of Martin after Martin had fled the area on a dark and rainy night. From Martin's perspective he did not now who this individual was, there was no indication (and Zimmerman has not said at this point) that he called out and identified himself as Neighborhood Watch. From Martin's perspective there was this weird guy pursuing him that he'd tried to get away from through two separate actions and here he was again approaching and confronting him (as per the audio witness).




From the dispatcher call it is clear that Martin "the hot-head" had tried to evade Zimmerman twice. Once by walking away from Zimmerman's truck when Zimmerman stopped near the clubhouse and a second time by running away after Zimmerman had followed him down Twin Trees Lane.

The "hot head" appears to have been Zimmerman interjecting himself in a police matter in direct violation of the training that Neighborhood Watch personnel are given. We are told to observe and report, NOT to attempt to intercede in the event - that is the job of the police.



And to provide a contrast to an obviously biased evaluation in support of Zimmerman lets turn it around in the other direction.

"George Zimmerman resentful of black people walking through his neighborhood and decided to take the law into his own hands. He called the police for no other reason then this black kid was on his turf. Zimmerman, DATNiggyTB (Zimmerman's MySpace screen name), then chased this kid down grabbing him so he didn't get away like the other black kids a few months before. Which isn't surprising considering that Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a police officer, broke the leg of a woman while he was a bouncer, and received a restraining order for domestic violence. But the kid struggled so Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman is learning there are limits to what a gun toting vigilante can get away with."​

Now, is that stupid? Sure it is. But see how that works from the other perspective?


>>>>

The prosecution will not go into any speculation of the fight with the Medical Examiner.

Of course not, they will call the Medical Examiner to explain the results of the autopsy noting that there was only one small abrasion on one finger of the left hand and then they will probably follow that up with a question as to whether in the Medical Examiners expert opinion (which an ME is) if one small abrasion is consistent with someone punching another person in the head using the same words as Zimmerman which I believe was "over a dozen times" (to paraphrase).

Secondly I can see the prosecution noting for the record that there was no evidence of blood on Martins hands (and later DNA tests) and will then confirm that the ME followed standard procedures and completed a detailed exterior examination prior to the internal examination. If standard procedures were followed they will note the inconsistency of Zimmerman's statement that Martins had covered his nose and mouth after punch Zimmerman in the face "over a dozen times" (to paraphrase).

The lack of injuries to Martin's hands and the lack of blood/DNA on Martins hands and cuffs are not speculation.





That might be true if the intent was to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman, but it wouldn't be.

What it would do is cast doubt on Zimmerman's story and place before the Jury that Zimmerman lied.




Please go back and look, I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else that brought it up.

All your talk of "took direct action" and "from Martin's perspective" is all speculation.

True, and if you go back and read what I was responding to it was responding to speculation that Martin HAD to have attacked Zimmerman.

Presently there is no conclusive proof that has been released to the public as part of discovery that shows who attacked whom. The only "evidence" that, at this point, likely to be introduced will be Zimmerman's statements to the police and the video reenactment and the prosecution will be introducing physical and forensic evidence that undermines that story.

Now I happen to agree with you on many issues, not all of them, but speculation is not allowed at trial by any witness the prosecution puts up and none of them can testify in any way "Well, if it happened this way, if Martin had done this as it appeared it may have, since Zimmerman had pursued and probably did not identify himself" none of that is allowed as all the forensic evidence introduced is given as it is, as it lays. The determiner of fact is the jury as they are the ones that determine the facts.

Please go back and read my posts, my "speculation" here on an internet message board is used to counterpoint "speculation" that it was Martin that HAD to have attacked Zimmerman.

There is no physical or forensic evidence that supports that. There is a "dead zone", if you will, between the end of the recording for the dispatcher call and the first neighbor witnesses coming on line. Between those two events the ONLY evidence that exists is the girlfriend hearing a mail voice confront Martin (which disagrees with Zimmerman's version).

And you are absolutley right, it will be up to the jury to weight the forensic evidence against Zimmerman's story.


>>>>

All the defense needs is speculation that there a small possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman first to have reasonable doubt and find Zimmerman not guilty.
The prosecution can not do that, well they can but it looks bad on them as it makes their case look weak. And since they have the burden of proof, and the defendant Zimmerman does not have that burden, they have to have iron clad facts They have to have every element of their case 100% solid and no speculation.
So in arguments here and anywhere any speculation that Zimmerman is guilty holds no water and all speculation that Zimmerman was possibly acting in self defense and is possibly not guilty do hold water.
Not guilty is completely different than innocent. Not guilty means the government did not prove their case as the defendant, Zimmerman, does not have to prove anything.
In fact, Zimmerman has no duty to testify and the defense has no duty to put up ANY EVIDENCE.
And the judge will charge the jury that if the defense does not put up any evidence that is not to be considered in any way that the defendant is guilty in any way and does not make any or all of the prosecutions' evidence any stronger.
That is the law applied when this case goes to trial so why not here and in all legal arguments concerning this case?

 

[Gadawg73]

world doesnt care anymore

Yea the liberal press only cared when the they were trying to put an "racist" WHITE MAN (even though he turned out to be Hispanic) in jail for killing an innocent black midget!

When the tables turned and the TRUE story became an innocent Hispanic defending himself from a LARGE guilty black teen, with a deeply troubled past, who was 100% in the wrong, then the liberal world didn't care!

Not only liberal people, sane people all over the world understand that an armed man killed an unarmed teenager. The armed man's actions were the proximate cause of the incident which lead to the teenagers death.

Give a coward a gun and he develops "Dutch Courage"; a common characteristic of wannabe cops and conservatives who lurk around here.

Proximate cause is in the civil courts and has no standing in this criminal court.
Zimmerman is not claiming he did not shoot Martin.
What proof is there that Zimmerman is a coward?
Only conservatives get "Dutch Courage"? Surely you jest!

 

[Gadawg73]

He wasn't trespassing on someone else's property, he was in a gated community where his father was a resident.

Zimmerman's going to prison, because no jury in its right mind is going to have a race riot over this bit of white trash.

So we bow to terrorist threats and ignore the law. Let mob rule dictate everything.
Sounds like the way an anarchist would want it.

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

I can assure you the most people believe in and support the law.

 

[JoeB131]

So we bow to terrorist threats and ignore the law. Let mob rule dictate everything.
Sounds like the way an anarchist would want it.

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

So you do not have a driver's license, no car insurance, you do not obey red lights and stop signs and obey no law.
You are full of shit as usual.

What did that have to do with anything I said? Of course, I obey the laws.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that Zimmerman KILLED A CHILD.

And I know you think you can be slick using terms like "reasonable doubt" and trying to confuse the issue with bullshit like 'He had a bloody nose" or "Trayvon smoked pot once" or some other bullshit, but at the end of the day.

ZIMMERMAN KILLED A CHILD. Shot him in the middle of the street when he was unarmed carrying a bag of skittles. And he almost got away with it because he's white and Daddy is a judge.

If Zimmerman were black and Trayvon were white, there would not be an issue here, and you know it.

 

[paperview]

Well, this is interesting. Zimmerman's best friend (the federal agent working with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who just happened to have Chief Lee as his boss previously, and looked up to the Chief as a "father figure...) has written a book!

Oh my!

Osterman is his name. He went to the station the night George killed Trayvon

Osterman rushed to the scene that night, and accompanied his best friend every step of the way through the investigation, including his first three interrogations by Sanford police.

"Osterman says he was quickly recognized by cops on the scene"

Hmmm. :think:

I think this was the most stunning part. Here he quotes Zimmerman, and in a surprising non-corroboration of stories, he has Zimmerman saying Z grabbed TM's wrist and that TM even had his hand gripped on the gun.

&#8220;For a brief moment I had control of the wrist, but I knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist with his leg. He took his hand that was covering my nose and went for the gun, saying, &#8220;You&#8217;re gonna die now, mother ******.&#8217; Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear sight and the hammer. I got the gun in my hand, raised it toward the guy&#8217;s chest and pulled the trigger.&#8221;

Read more here: Zimmerman&#x2019;s friend: Trayvon grabbed gun - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Oh deary dear.

Only one problem. That didn't happen.

So, not only is George a liar, and his best friend, who is now trying to make money off the killing, is also a liar.

​

 

[paperview]

Yow. When this guy lies, he really lies.

"To explain why Zimmerman got out of his car while on the phone with police, he quotes a conversation between his friend and the dispatcher that never took place: &#8220;If you can&#8217;t see him do you still need us to send an officer? We need you to get to a place where you can see him,&#8221; he quotes the dispatcher in an exchange that is not contained on copies of the police call or transcripts widely posted on the Internet.


Trayvon&#8217;s supporters believe Osterman&#8217;s book proves that Zimmerman can&#8217;t keep his story straight because none of it is true."

Read more here: Zimmerman&#x2019;s friend: Trayvon grabbed gun - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Does this idiot not even know about the freaking non-911 phone call we all heard, or that there are about a million transcripts of it out there.

It's a shame that guy Osterman going to be on the witness stand. Well, not really.

Nyuk

 

[Ravi]

Why would the guy be allowed in the room when Zimmerman was being questioned by the cops to begin with?

 

[paperview]

Why would the guy be allowed in the room when Zimmerman was being questioned by the cops to begin with?

It says accompanied. I'm not sure if he was in the room. He may have been. He was buds with the cops there, after all.

I'm not planning on contributing to that dirtbag's blood money attempt, but I imagine the details are there in the book.