Thread: Zimmerman trial

Now that the prosecution has presented its case in the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, it might be time to have a thread on the topic. I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

Two things come to mind.

First since the defense hasn't had its opportunity to present its rebuttal or its evidence how can we discuss this case with only one sides presentation? Without knowing BOTH sides of the story you cannot discuss this case with much integrity.

Second I can't have much to say about this case because it is only the JURY that must decide what they think is the verdict and who is at fault or not.

While anyone can have their opinions about this case which they can talk about forever it won't change the outcome of what the jury finds. I really do not think that ANY legal case that is being adjudicated should even be addressed by anyone until the case is completed and the verdict is handed down. That way the trial can be done without prejudice by the public knowing everything which taints the jury selection and could affect the outcome if the jury knows that what they decide could cause riots and injuries to others.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Two things come to mind.

First since the defense hasn't had its opportunity to present its rebuttal or its evidence how can we discuss this case with only one sides presentation? Without knowing BOTH sides of the story you cannot discuss this case with much integrity.

We can examine the evidence presented and evaluate it on its merits. Why not?

Second I can't have much to say about this case because it is only the JURY that must decide what they think is the verdict and who is at fault or not.

The jury is sequestered and won't be influenced by what we discuss here.

While anyone can have their opinions about this case which they can talk about forever it won't change the outcome of what the jury finds. I really do not think that ANY legal case that is being adjudicated should even be addressed by anyone until the case is completed and the verdict is handed down. That way the trial can be done without prejudice by the public knowing everything which taints the jury selection and could affect the outcome if the jury knows that what they decide could cause riots and injuries to others.

This ship has already sailed. The trial by media started before Zimmerman was arrested. I think we in the general public need to keep aware of what is going on and make some judgments about what the government is doing in our name. Don't you?

I have always been a proponent of making a law that would keep any trial out of the public view until it is over with. As you have said the public has already been told things that the media told it whether those things were right or wrong they should not have been discussed at all. This is the thrust of my point here. You make clear the cat is out of the bag but I do not have to go chasing it around and become part of the daily circus that follows this case.

On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

With modern techniques for detecting/ analysing very small samples, you only need a normal amount of residual sweat from a hand or even a few skin cells. They can sometimes get results out of DNA samples from doorknobs and steering wheels. Though the smaller the amount in the first place, the less likely it becomes that you'll get a usable result.

Harold, thank you for starting this thread. I have been hesitating to do so.

I haven't been able to follow the trial closely, but I'm surprised that the prosecution rested already as I anticipated the prosecution to raise certain subjects about particular evidence. All I ever heard on the news was testimony, and little or no evidence. Sorry for all the verbiage below.

For example —

If Zimmerman was lying on the ground and Martin was straddling and attacking him, and Martin was supposedly agitated (ie, with high blood pressure), and Zimmerman shot him through the heart, then wouldn't Martin's blood gush out and spatter on Zimmerman — even a little bit? Considering the pressure inside the heart and aorta, it would have been a mess. So where's all the spatter? Where's the results of the tests of Martin's blood spattered on Zimmerman to see if it contained any contagious diseases that Zimmerman might contract? Where's the concern that Martin's blood may have come into contact with the open wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head or elsewhere? After all, Zimmerman himself described Martin as acting weird like he was on something. Maybe he was an IV drug user; they get all sorts of diseases through dirty needles. Zimmerman and the medical personnel who treated him didn't care? Oh please.

In the above Zimmerman-supine-Martin-astraddle scenario, if Martin punched Zimmerman in the face 25 to 30 times with Martin's head on the concrete, where's the contusions and swelling on Zimmerman's face? Where's the evidence of Martin's battered knuckles?

Then there's the screaming overheard on the 911 call. Will 28-year-old Zimmerman really claim that he screamed like a girl? Please. I've heard at least a few teenage black kids scream (and a few grown black men too), and THEY can scream like a girl.

Zimmerman claims that Martin said "You got me" after Zimmerman shot him? I've fired plenty of guns, and been around plenty of people firing guns, unfortunately sometimes with little or no ear protection, and I tell you what — your ears ring A LOT — I would say especially if your head is up against hard concrete that would help reflect some of the report toward your ears. I can't imagine Martin speaking in a regular voice after being shot, or even in a subdued voice. If Martin ever said, "You got me," it was before Zimmerman shot him (as in "You caught me, please don't shoot me."). It's hard for me to imagine a shot through the heart did not rupture one or both lungs. In such case, Martin's might have attempted to speak but nothing would come out — literally. He probably would have suffered a pneumothorax (ie, a "collapsed lung") and would be breathing through his wound(s). And shot through the heart, his blood pressure would have dropped in seconds and he would have lost consciousness. Hardly any time to say anything or to think of saying anything. Pulleeease.

And did the prosecution try to claim that Martin himself may have been acting within the Stand Your Ground statute?

Did the prosecution play Zimmerman's calls to the police while stalking Martin, saying all that psychotic paranoid stuff about perfectly innocent Martin?

And I was very shocked to see police testifying in full uniforms. I understand that, in my jurisdiction, no uniforms of any nature can be worn by witnesses — not police/firefighters, not soldiers, not doctors/nurses, not priests/ministers/rabbis, etc. Everybody testifies in everyday attire (or a suit or something), but no uniforms because it biases the jury too much. Am I wrong on this?

Bob Dylan should crank up the ol' guitar again, it's another "Hurricane Carter" situation, except this time the black guy's killer is getting away.

If you're black you might as well not show up on the street, 'less you wanna draw the heat.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Harold, thank you for starting this thread. I have been hesitating to do so.

I haven't been able to follow the trial closely, but I'm surprised that the prosecution rested already as I anticipated the prosecution to raise certain subjects about particular evidence. All I ever heard on the news was testimony, and little or no evidence. Sorry for all the verbiage below.

For example —

If Zimmerman was lying on the ground and Martin was straddling and attacking him, and Martin was supposedly agitated (ie, with high blood pressure), and Zimmerman shot him through the heart, then wouldn't Martin's blood gush out and spatter on Zimmerman — even a little bit? Considering the pressure inside the heart and aorta, it would have been a mess. So where's all the spatter?

From my understanding, the gun was in contact with the shirt, but not Martin's chest. This would support the idea that Martin was leaning forward. So there would be a 9 mm hole in the shirt for the back spatter to come back through toward the gun, which wouldn't be much blood. Most would have been caught by the shirt.

Where's the results of the tests of Martin's blood spattered on Zimmerman to see if it contained any contagious diseases that Zimmerman might contract? Where's the concern that Martin's blood may have come into contact with the open wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head or elsewhere? After all, Zimmerman himself described Martin as acting weird like he was on something. Maybe he was an IV drug user; they get all sorts of diseases through dirty needles. Zimmerman and the medical personnel who treated him didn't care? Oh please.

What's your point? The fact that Zim shot him is not really in dispute.

In the above Zimmerman-supine-Martin-astraddle scenario, if Martin punched Zimmerman in the face 25 to 30 times with Martin's head on the concrete, where's the contusions and swelling on Zimmerman's face? Where's the evidence of Martin's battered knuckles?

Zimmerman had a broken nose, bumps on his head, and was bleeding from the back of the head. Didn't you see the pictures?

Then there's the screaming overheard on the 911 call. Will 28-year-old Zimmerman really claim that he screamed like a girl? Please. I've heard at least a few teenage black kids scream (and a few grown black men too), and THEY can scream like a girl.

So you can imagine a grown black man with a high pitched scream, but not a grown white or Hispanic man screaming? Well, actually Zimmerman had some black ancestry on his mother's side. Would that be enough to do it?

Zimmerman claims that Martin said "You got me" after Zimmerman shot him? I've fired plenty of guns, and been around plenty of people firing guns, unfortunately sometimes with little or no ear protection, and I tell you what — your ears ring A LOT — I would say especially if your head is up against hard concrete that would help reflect some of the report toward your ears. I can't imagine Martin speaking in a regular voice after being shot, or even in a subdued voice. If Martin ever said, "You got me," it was before Zimmerman shot him (as in "You caught me, please don't shoot me.").

I've shot guns too. It's loud, but really not deafening.

It's hard for me to imagine a shot through the heart did not rupture one or both lungs. In such case, Martin's might have attempted to speak but nothing would come out — literally. He probably would have suffered a pneumothorax (ie, a "collapsed lung") and would be breathing through his wound(s). And shot through the heart, his blood pressure would have dropped in seconds and he would have lost consciousness. Hardly any time to say anything or to think of saying anything. Pulleeease.

Why would a shot through the heart rupture a lung? This is a handgun, not a high powered rifle. I've seen deer run 100 yards shot through the lungs with a 30-06. People can fight on for quite a while after sustaining fatal injuries such as Martin had. This is why some experts recommend a couple shots to the center of mass, then one to the brain. The one to the brain stops the fight right away. Nothing else is guaranteed to do so.

And did the prosecution try to claim that Martin himself may have been acting within the Stand Your Ground statute?

It doesn't apply there.

Did the prosecution play Zimmerman's calls to the police while stalking Martin, saying all that psychotic paranoid stuff about perfectly innocent Martin?

What psychotic paranoid stuff are you referring to?

And I was very shocked to see police testifying in full uniforms. I understand that, in my jurisdiction, no uniforms of any nature can be worn by witnesses — not police/firefighters, not soldiers, not doctors/nurses, not priests/ministers/rabbis, etc. Everybody testifies in everyday attire (or a suit or something), but no uniforms because it biases the jury too much. Am I wrong on this?

Bob Dylan should crank up the ol' guitar again, it's another "Hurricane Carter" situation, except this time the black guy's killer is getting away.

I'd rather keep this thread about the evidence instead of emotional appeals.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Now that the prosecution has presented its case in the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, it might be time to have a thread on the topic. I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

You can get DNA evidence from skin cells, not just saliva or other fluids.

DNA is present in nearly every cell of our bodies, and we leave cells behind everywhere we go without even realizing it. Flakes of skin, drops of blood, hair, and saliva all contain DNA that can be used to identify us. In fact, the study of forensics, commonly used by police departments and prosecutors around the world, frequently relies upon these small bits of shed DNA to link criminals to the crimes they commit.

The lack of evidence goes against Zimmerman's claims of Martin grabbing his gun (e.g. skin cells on the weapon), or Martin being on top of him (e.g. blood spatter evidence)at an extremely close range (e.g. point blank). There is no DNA evidence of Martin on the gun.

Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS

As for Zimmerman's injuries, there is a consensus that it wasn't life threatening. Neither Zimmerman, the Police, or train medical professionals thought the injuries warranted a trip to the hospital. This begs the question, "does a school yard brawl or bar fight warrant the use of deadly force?" especially if the shooter was the one that initiated the incident. This is mountain that the Zimmerman defense team must climb.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

The lack of evidence goes against Zimmerman's claims of Martin grabbing his gun (e.g. skin cells on the weapon), or Martin being on top of him (e.g. blood spatter evidence)at an extremely close range (e.g. point blank). There is no DNA evidence of Martin on the gun.

Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS

That is really a stretch by the prosecution. First of all, Martin could have been grabbing for the gun without having gotten hold of it. Secondly, they would have to show that there was a high probability of leaving DNA under those circumstances. They have the burden of proof. At that range, blood could spatter upwards just as easily as down, if it was going to spatter.

As for Zimmerman's injuries, there is a consensus that it wasn't life threatening. Neither Zimmerman, the Police, or train medical professionals thought the injuries warranted a trip to the hospital. This begs the question, "does a school yard brawl or bar fight warrant the use of deadly force?" especially if the shooter was the one that initiated the incident. This is mountain that the Zimmerman defense team must climb.

The injuries do not have to be life threatening. Only the circumstances do. School yard brawls and bar fights can be fatal. The state has not shown that the shooter initiated the incident. Unless evidence is presented otherwise, Zimmerman's story of being jumped on his way back to his vehicle stands.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

The lack of evidence goes against Zimmerman's claims of Martin grabbing his gun (e.g. skin cells on the weapon), or Martin being on top of him (e.g. blood spatter evidence)at an extremely close range (e.g. point blank). There is no DNA evidence of Martin on the gun.

Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS

That is really a stretch by the prosecution. First of all, Martin could have been grabbing for the gun without having gotten hold of it. Secondly, they would have to show that there was a high probability of leaving DNA under those circumstances. They have the burden of proof. At that range, blood could spatter upwards just as easily as down, if it was going to spatter.

The is already evidence that Zimmerman initially pursued a non-suspect. There is already evidence that Zimmerman killed him. Zimmerman has already admitted this much in police reports. Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, there is the rub. So now the defense has to prove that Martin came into contact with Zimmerman. I am unaware of any evidence of Martin that is on Zimmerman's person or weapon. You can claim that Zimmerman's injuries were caused by Martin hitting him, but that isn't evidence. You can equally claim that Zimmerman say Martin turn and start to stand his ground, and a frightened Zimmerman slipped on the wet surface and in a panic fired his weapon as Martin tried to help him up. Both claims have no other evidence beyond Zimmerman's superficial injuries. You point of "range" is well taken, but goes against your point. There should have been Martin's blood on Zimmerman, given Zimmerman's report of Martin being on top of him.

The injuries do not have to be life threatening. Only the circumstances do. School yard brawls and bar fights can be fatal. The state has not shown that the shooter initiated the incident. Unless evidence is presented otherwise, Zimmerman's story of being jumped on his way back to his vehicle stands.

If your going to use "circumstances" as the metric, then who is at greater risk here, the person with a gun in telephone contact with law enforcement or the person "armed" with candy and pop in telephone contact with his girlfriend? Zimmerman's story of identifying Martin, calling 911 to report the incident, following a non-suspect, then running after him after Martin became aware of being pursed, stopping and losing sight of him, to be surprised and jumped on his way back to his vehicle is a whopper of claim.
Whether or not it meets the threshold for justifiable homicide, is yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1. From my understanding, the gun was in contact with the shirt, but not Martin's chest. This would support the idea that Martin was leaning forward. So there would be a 9 mm hole in the shirt for the back spatter to come back through toward the gun, which wouldn't be much blood. Most would have been caught by the shirt.

2. What's your point? The fact that Zim shot him is not really in dispute.

3. Zimmerman had a broken nose, bumps on his head, and was bleeding from the back of the head. Didn't you see the pictures?

4. So you can imagine a grown black man with a high pitched scream, but not a grown white or Hispanic man screaming? Well, actually Zimmerman had some black ancestry on his mother's side. Would that be enough to do it?

5. I've shot guns too. It's loud, but really not deafening.

6. Why would a shot through the heart rupture a lung? This is a handgun, not a high powered rifle. I've seen deer run 100 yards shot through the lungs with a 30-06. People can fight on for quite a while after sustaining fatal injuries such as Martin had. This is why some experts recommend a couple shots to the center of mass, then one to the brain. The one to the brain stops the fight right away. Nothing else is guaranteed to do so.

7. It doesn't apply there.

8. What psychotic paranoid stuff are you referring to?

9. I'd rather keep this thread about the evidence instead of emotional appeals.

1. We're talking about the organ (heart) and vessel (aorta) with the highest blood pressures. I would say there'd be a lot of blood and a lot of pressure, especially when excited. I'm not talking "splash", I'm not talking "leaking" or "oozing" as a steak leaks or oozes, I'm talking high-pressure squirting, perhaps several feet through the air, and not something easily soaked up by a garment.

2. I've cleaned up biohazardous materials. You don't want any of it on you. If it gets on you, there's serious concern of being infected. Martin was an unknown in the beginning, and there should have been concern of Zimmerman having been contaminated by Martin's blood. This is routine medical precautions. Apparently there was no concern, not even from the medical people.

3. The "broken nose" claim was supported with x-ray proof? I haven't heard of any. I saw the photos and the blood. Who's blood? Only Zimmerman's? How do we know that?

4. Imagined black men screaming like a girl? I've heard at least one middle-aged black man scream like a girl. I know it sounds bigoted, but those have been my experiences. Sure, anyone might naturally scream like a girl, let's say a big, beefy, slavic Leonid-Brezhnev type of guy, complete with fuzzy eyebrows, so sure it's possible that Zimmerman could scream like a girl, but I think it's much more likely that the black teenager did, especially since he's the only one, until the trial proves otherwise, who obviously had faced mortal/serious danger.

5. Right, I don't mean perfectly deafening, but almost always that 150 dB rock concert effect where you can't hear someone muttering or talking under their breath or if they're facing away from you. Besides, I know that people can say the weirdest things in extraordinary situations, but for Martin to supposedly say, "You got me" after being shot through the heart? I find it hard to believe. I find Zimmerman hard to believe.

6. Sure, deer can run after shot, and chimps can bend the thick metal bars of their cages. But we're talking humans here. A 9mm bullet (.355-inch diameter, basically the same cross-sectional area as a 38 or a 357) can cause a lot of disruptive damage and hemorrhaging, plus it probably hit a rib or the sternum entering Martin, which would have acted as secondary projectiles. Plus, if the muzzle was up against Martin's chest, the blast from the muzzle is also very disruptive to soft tissue like the lungs. Was the round a slicker FMJ or another type more prone to mushrooming, I don't know? Consider actor Jon-Erik Hexum who accidentally killed himself with a 44 Magnum blank round fired at his head. All that high-pressure gas is very powerful and disruptive , especially to soft tissue.

7. Who says Martin's confrontation of Zimmerman stalking him wasn't standing his ground? And when Martin asked Zimmerman why he was stalking him, Zimmerman *lied*. If Zimmerman didn't lie, he would have averted this tragedy. If anyone had a right to stand his ground, it was Martin. He simply didn't realize that he was bringing Skittles and Iced Tea to a gunfight.

8. Recording of Zimmerman about Martin — "... a real suspicious guy ... this guy looks like he's up to no good ... he's on drugs or something ... ... something's wrong with him ... he's coming to check me out ... I don't know what his deal is ... these as****es they always get away ...". Zimmerman can't prove any of this. Zimmerman was über paranoid from the get go. Zimmerman obvious doesn't know that stalking someone is illegal and that it creeps people out. Martin's on drugs, or something's wrong with Martin? That "something" was Zimmerman. So, if these as****es always get away, why was Martin walking over to check out Zimmerman? It's perfectly legal and normal (and even prudent) while walking though a neighborhood, to look at houses, to look about, to be aware of one's surroundings, to notice someone stalking you, to ask a stalker why he is stalking you, etc. Let's also keep in mind that the neighborhood watch organization had repeatedly told their volunteers not to carry any weapons while on watch. So, it was Zimmerman who was over the top and acting weird even before Martin appeared.

9. Roger that; but there's no denying the evidence — Zimmerman described Martin as yet another one of "these as****es [who] always get away". Zimmerman's call to police is very self-incriminating.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

As for Zimmerman's injuries, there is a consensus that it wasn't life threatening. Neither Zimmerman, the Police, or train medical professionals thought the injuries warranted a trip to the hospital. This begs the question, "does a school yard brawl or bar fight warrant the use of deadly force?" especially if the shooter was the one that initiated the incident. This is mountain that the Zimmerman defense team must climb.

I don't know if it was this case/jurisdiction or another, but what had to be proven wasn't that the use of force was life threatening, but that a reasonable and prudent person would have thought that it was life threatening. For example, if a thug confronts you, uses his finger to pretend that he has a gun in his coat pocket aimed at you, and tells you to give him your money or he'll shoot you, then he jeopardizes his own life in doing so, as a reasonable and prudent person would have thought that the situation was life threatening — and, in fact, that the thug intended the victim to reach that same conclusion. Moral: Don't bring a pointed finger to a gunfight.

Fair point in your example, unless you know with certainty that you have a gun and there is no certainty of the other person having one. The one who was armed initiated a pursuit, of a person he deemed as burglar, about to commit a crime in a community that had a history or break-ins. Zimmerman initiated the "life threatening" situation.

In this particular case Zimmerman knew he was carrying his own personal weapon. I assume that a round was already chambered, since there are no reports of Zimmerman racking the slide. At no point in recorded in evidence I am aware of, did Zimmerman concluded Martin was armed or used any items (the beverage container and candy) in his possession as a weapon.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

The is already evidence that Zimmerman initially pursued a non-suspect. There is already evidence that Zimmerman killed him. Zimmerman has already admitted this much in police reports. Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, there is the rub. So now the defense has to prove that Martin came into contact with Zimmerman.

I thought I had replied to this post earlier, but my post seems to have disappeared. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case.

I am unaware of any evidence of Martin that is on Zimmerman's person or weapon. You can claim that Zimmerman's injuries were caused by Martin hitting him, but that isn't evidence. You can equally claim that Zimmerman say Martin turn and start to stand his ground, and a frightened Zimmerman slipped on the wet surface and in a panic fired his weapon as Martin tried to help him up. Both claims have no other evidence beyond Zimmerman's superficial injuries.

An eyewitness testified that there was a black guy in dark clothes on top of a white guy in red. The guy on top was punching MMA-style. In what world is that "no evidence"?

You point of "range" is well taken, but goes against your point. There should have been Martin's blood on Zimmerman, given Zimmerman's report of Martin being on top of him.

Has a forensic expert testified to this?

The injuries do not have to be life threatening. Only the circumstances do. School yard brawls and bar fights can be fatal. The state has not shown that the shooter initiated the incident. Unless evidence is presented otherwise, Zimmerman's story of being jumped on his way back to his vehicle stands.

If your going to use "circumstances" as the metric, then who is at greater risk here, the person with a gun in telephone contact with law enforcement or the person "armed" with candy and pop in telephone contact with his girlfriend?

At that point Zimmerman had hung up, and what would contact with law enforcement help him? The person at risk was the guy getting beaten mixed martial arts style, and having the assailant trying to take the gun from him.

Zimmerman's story of identifying Martin, calling 911 to report the incident, following a non-suspect, then running after him after Martin became aware of being pursed, stopping and losing sight of him, to be surprised and jumped on his way back to his vehicle is a whopper of claim.
Whether or not it meets the threshold for justifiable homicide, is yet to be determined.

What specifically about Zimmerman's story do you find difficult to believe? It is not hard to believe that Martin came back to instigate a fight. Zimmerman's call to the police began at 7:09. He reported Martin running 2 minutes into the call. If Martin was just headed home, he could easily have made it in 2 minutes. Zimmerman's call ended at 7:15. So that's another 4 minutes that Martin had time to go home, then come back again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin...call_to_police

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

1. We're talking about the organ (heart) and vessel (aorta) with the highest blood pressures. I would say there'd be a lot of blood and a lot of pressure, especially when excited. I'm not talking "splash", I'm not talking "leaking" or "oozing" as a steak leaks or oozes, I'm talking high-pressure squirting, perhaps several feet through the air, and not something easily soaked up by a garment.

2. I've cleaned up biohazardous materials. You don't want any of it on you. If it gets on you, there's serious concern of being infected. Martin was an unknown in the beginning, and there should have been concern of Zimmerman having been contaminated by Martin's blood. This is routine medical precautions. Apparently there was no concern, not even from the medical people.

I still don't see what you're getting at. Are you saying he wasn't shot at close range? That would be at odds with what the forensic experts say.

3. The "broken nose" claim was supported with x-ray proof? I haven't heard of any. I saw the photos and the blood. Who's blood? Only Zimmerman's? How do we know that?

From Wiki: "Police reports state Zimmerman "appeared to have a broken and a bloody nose and swelling of his face." Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution.^[198] ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek."

4. Imagined black men screaming like a girl? I've heard at least one middle-aged black man scream like a girl. I know it sounds bigoted, but those have been my experiences. Sure, anyone might naturally scream like a girl, let's say a big, beefy, slavic Leonid-Brezhnev type of guy, complete with fuzzy eyebrows, so sure it's possible that Zimmerman could scream like a girl, but I think it's much more likely that the black teenager did, especially since he's the only one, until the trial proves otherwise, who obviously had faced mortal/serious danger.

It's much more likely that the guy on the bottom getting beaten would scream, rather than the guy on top doing the beating.

5. Right, I don't mean perfectly deafening, but almost always that 150 dB rock concert effect where you can't hear someone muttering or talking under their breath or if they're facing away from you. Besides, I know that people can say the weirdest things in extraordinary situations, but for Martin to supposedly say, "You got me" after being shot through the heart? I find it hard to believe. I find Zimmerman hard to believe.

I find you hard to believe.

6. Sure, deer can run after shot, and chimps can bend the thick metal bars of their cages. But we're talking humans here. A 9mm bullet (.355-inch diameter, basically the same cross-sectional area as a 38 or a 357) can cause a lot of disruptive damage and hemorrhaging, plus it probably hit a rib or the sternum entering Martin, which would have acted as secondary projectiles. Plus, if the muzzle was up against Martin's chest, the blast from the muzzle is also very disruptive to soft tissue like the lungs. Was the round a slicker FMJ or another type more prone to mushrooming, I don't know? Consider actor Jon-Erik Hexum who accidentally killed himself with a 44 Magnum blank round fired at his head. All that high-pressure gas is very powerful and disruptive , especially to soft tissue.

Do you have any testimony from forensic experts, or are you just speculating?

7. Who says Martin's confrontation of Zimmerman stalking him wasn't standing his ground? And when Martin asked Zimmerman why he was stalking him, Zimmerman *lied*. If Zimmerman didn't lie, he would have averted this tragedy. If anyone had a right to stand his ground, it was Martin. He simply didn't realize that he was bringing Skittles and Iced Tea to a gunfight.

What lie are you referring to, and how do you know what Zimmerman said? If Trayvon hadn't started pounding on George, he would have averted the trajedy.

8. Recording of Zimmerman about Martin — "... a real suspicious guy ... this guy looks like he's up to no good ... he's on drugs or something ... ... something's wrong with him ... he's coming to check me out ... I don't know what his deal is ... these as****es they always get away ...". Zimmerman can't prove any of this. Zimmerman was über paranoid from the get go. Zimmerman obvious doesn't know that stalking someone is illegal and that it creeps people out. Martin's on drugs, or something's wrong with Martin? That "something" was Zimmerman. So, if these as****es always get away, why was Martin walking over to check out Zimmerman? It's perfectly legal and normal (and even prudent) while walking though a neighborhood, to look at houses, to look about, to be aware of one's surroundings, to notice someone stalking you, to ask a stalker why he is stalking you, etc. Let's also keep in mind that the neighborhood watch organization had repeatedly told their volunteers not to carry any weapons while on watch. So, it was Zimmerman who was over the top and acting weird even before Martin appeared.

Zimmerman wasn't on watch, nor was he stalking.

9. Roger that; but there's no denying the evidence — Zimmerman described Martin as yet another one of "these as****es [who] always get away". Zimmerman's call to police is very self-incriminating.

Calling somebody an asshole does not incriminate oneself in a murder.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Harold, thank you for starting this thread. I have been hesitating to do so.

I haven't been able to follow the trial closely, but I'm surprised that the prosecution rested already as I anticipated the prosecution to raise certain subjects about particular evidence. All I ever heard on the news was testimony, and little or no evidence. Sorry for all the verbiage below.

For example —

If Zimmerman was lying on the ground and Martin was straddling and attacking him, and Martin was supposedly agitated (ie, with high blood pressure), and Zimmerman shot him through the heart, then wouldn't Martin's blood gush out and spatter on Zimmerman — even a little bit? Considering the pressure inside the heart and aorta, it would have been a mess. So where's all the spatter? Where's the results of the tests of Martin's blood spattered on Zimmerman to see if it contained any contagious diseases that Zimmerman might contract? Where's the concern that Martin's blood may have come into contact with the open wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head or elsewhere? After all, Zimmerman himself described Martin as acting weird like he was on something. Maybe he was an IV drug user; they get all sorts of diseases through dirty needles. Zimmerman and the medical personnel who treated him didn't care? Oh please.

As a general rule.... if the prosecution doesn't feel like presenting something as evidence..... it's usually because they don't think it would help their case.

That should tell you what the evidence likely was.

Bob Dylan should crank up the ol' guitar again, it's another "Hurricane Carter" situation, except this time the black guy's killer is getting away.

If you're black you might as well not show up on the street, 'less you wanna draw the heat.

This is going to be the problem Zimmerman faces. Everyone will assume guilt rather than examine evidence.

All our guilt about years of racism comes to the surface and expresses itself, but we can't make up for years of sending innocent black people to prison by sending innocent white people to prison now.

That's just two wrongs. It doesn't make a right.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Now that the prosecution has presented its case in the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, it might be time to have a thread on the topic. I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

You can get DNA evidence from skin cells, not just saliva or other fluids.

DNA is present in nearly every cell of our bodies, and we leave cells behind everywhere we go without even realizing it. Flakes of skin, drops of blood, hair, and saliva all contain DNA that can be used to identify us. In fact, the study of forensics, commonly used by police departments and prosecutors around the world, frequently relies upon these small bits of shed DNA to link criminals to the crimes they commit.

The lack of evidence goes against Zimmerman's claims of Martin grabbing his gun (e.g. skin cells on the weapon), or Martin being on top of him (e.g. blood spatter evidence)at an extremely close range (e.g. point blank). There is no DNA evidence of Martin on the gun.

Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS

I'm sure you *can* get DNA from those things, but you're not guaranteed to.

We're talking about a court of law here, aren't we? Do you really want unreliable, potentially biasing evidence presented to a jury?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I thought I had replied to this post earlier, but my post seems to have disappeared. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case.

As a general rule of law you are correct, the prosecution must prove there case. They have. There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He had not planned in advance to kill Martin. This fits the charge to second degree murder. We already have police reports of Zimmerman admitting to his gun, his firing, and killing Martin. Martin has gone on national TV and admitted to killing Martin.

Now if the defense doesn't present a case at the same time the prosecution rested, their is very good chance that Zimmerman could be convicted of the charge. Therefore it is prudent at this point that the defense, mount a defense. They must explain that Zimmerman was "justified" in killing Martin, this is why they adopted such a defense.

An eyewitness testified that there was a black guy in dark clothes on top of a white guy in red. The guy on top was punching MMA-style. In what world is that "no evidence"?

I wasn't aware of such a testimonial. I'll take your word for it.

Has a forensic expert testified to this?

Wednesday afternoon, the jury learned from Anthony Gorgone, a crime lab analyst, that Trayvon's DNA was not found on Zimmerman's gun. Gorgone, who works for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, took the stand a day after another state witness testified that Trayvon's fingerprints were not found on the gun. In arguments to the jury, state attorneys have continued to stress those points.

Meanwhile, Gorgone testified that George Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's shirt that was worn under Trayvon's hoodie but not on the hoodie itself.

Trayvon's DNA was on Zimmerman's jacket --including on the bottom right cuff--but not on Zimmerman's undershirt.
Gorgone added that DNA can be degraded by mold, humidity and other environmental impacts. Trayvon's hoodie and the shirt he wore under it were packaged in plastic bags while still wet. That isn't recommended and when Gorgone received the clothing, the teen's hoodie smelled of mold and both items were still wet.

Gorgone said he may have gotten more DNA results had the clothes been packaged differently. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/03/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-trial/2485825/

I stand corrected on the other DNA evidence, some was found on each other's clothing. No evidence of Martin (finger prints or DNA) on Zimmerman's gun.

What specifically about Zimmerman's story do you find difficult to believe? It is not hard to believe that Martin came back to instigate a fight.

"It certainly goes to a state of mind," said Mantei who added that the records show Zimmerman carried wanted to be a police officer.

Alexis Carter, a former Seminole County College professor, testified that Zimmerman earned an 'A' in his criminal litigation class. Carter says he discussed Florida's self-defense and stand-your-ground laws quite often with students.

Zimmerman was among one of his better students, Carter said.

Prosecutors said Carter's testimony is important because Zimmerman told Sean Hannity in an interview that Zimmerman didn't know about stand your ground laws until after shooting Trayvon. Carter told jurors he taught Zimmerman's class about stand your ground and talked extensively about self defense.

Well a young man with an interest in law enforcement since 2009, seems to have memory issues when it comes to his criminal litigation classes, who had formed a neighborhood watch program, who referred to recent burglaries in his neighborhood, who identified, pursued, even chased Martin through the same community he lived - gave up turned his back and walked back to his truck where he was "surprised" by Martin? Yet the body of Martin wasn't found her Zimmerman's truck, but close to where Martin was staying.

I'm just not accustomed to people chasing random strangers around a community, having said strangers behaving in a concern and frighten manner (running away- flight), and then having the person who started the entire event kill the stranger claiming self-defense.

Originally Posted by kojax

We're talking about a court of law here, aren't we? Do you really want unreliable, potentially biasing evidence presented to a jury?

In a court of law eyewitness testimony is considered evidence, even though it is deemed the most unreliable and potentially biased.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I thought I had replied to this post earlier, but my post seems to have disappeared. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case.

As a general rule of law you are correct, the prosecution must prove there case. They have. There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He had not planned in advance to kill Martin. This fits the charge to second degree murder. We already have police reports of Zimmerman admitting to his gun, his firing, and killing Martin. Martin has gone on national TV and admitted to killing Martin.

Now if the defense doesn't present a case at the same time the prosecution rested, their is very good chance that Zimmerman could be convicted of the charge. Therefore it is prudent at this point that the defense, mount a defense. They must explain that Zimmerman was "justified" in killing Martin, this is why they adopted such a defense.

Zimmerman has told a credible story indicating he acted in self defense. The prosecution has done little or nothing to indicate that it was not self defense.

An eyewitness testified that there was a black guy in dark clothes on top of a white guy in red. The guy on top was punching MMA-style. In what world is that "no evidence"?

I wasn't aware of such a testimonial. I'll take your word for it.

What?? You have not paid any attention to the trial, yet you have a strong opinion about it?

Has a forensic expert testified to this?

Wednesday afternoon, the jury learned from Anthony Gorgone, a crime lab analyst, that Trayvon's DNA was not found on Zimmerman's gun. Gorgone, who works for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, took the stand a day after another state witness testified that Trayvon's fingerprints were not found on the gun. In arguments to the jury, state attorneys have continued to stress those points.

Meanwhile, Gorgone testified that George Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's shirt that was worn under Trayvon's hoodie but not on the hoodie itself.

Trayvon's DNA was on Zimmerman's jacket --including on the bottom right cuff--but not on Zimmerman's undershirt.
Gorgone added that DNA can be degraded by mold, humidity and other environmental impacts. Trayvon's hoodie and the shirt he wore under it were packaged in plastic bags while still wet. That isn't recommended and when Gorgone received the clothing, the teen's hoodie smelled of mold and both items were still wet.

Gorgone said he may have gotten more DNA results had the clothes been packaged differently. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/03/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-trial/2485825/

I stand corrected on the other DNA evidence, some was found on each other's clothing. No evidence of Martin (finger prints or DNA) on Zimmerman's gun.

Nothing there saying the DNA should have been on the gun. Why is the prosecution presenting evidence that proves nothing? It looks like they are just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.

What specifically about Zimmerman's story do you find difficult to believe? It is not hard to believe that Martin came back to instigate a fight.

"It certainly goes to a state of mind," said Mantei who added that the records show Zimmerman carried wanted to be a police officer.

Alexis Carter, a former Seminole County College professor, testified that Zimmerman earned an 'A' in his criminal litigation class. Carter says he discussed Florida's self-defense and stand-your-ground laws quite often with students.

Zimmerman was among one of his better students, Carter said.

Prosecutors said Carter's testimony is important because Zimmerman told Sean Hannity in an interview that Zimmerman didn't know about stand your ground laws until after shooting Trayvon. Carter told jurors he taught Zimmerman's class about stand your ground and talked extensively about self defense.

Well a young man with an interest in law enforcement since 2009, seems to have memory issues when it comes to his criminal litigation classes, who had formed a neighborhood watch program, who referred to recent burglaries in his neighborhood, who identified, pursued, even chased Martin through the same community he lived - gave up turned his back and walked back to his truck where he was "surprised" by Martin? Yet the body of Martin wasn't found her Zimmerman's truck, but close to where Martin was staying.

Please state where you think the truck was parked. The body was found toward the north end of the row of houses, which is only a couple of hundred yards long. Martin was staying near the south end of the row of houses. Even if he was closer to the house than the truck, which I don't think is the case, that still wouldn't mean he wasn't walking back to his truck.

What do you think is significant about what Zimmerman knew or didn't know about the stand-your-ground law? This isn't even as stand-your-ground case. How would it help or hurt his case if he knew or didn't know the law?

I'm just not accustomed to people chasing random strangers around a community, having said strangers behaving in a concern and frighten manner (running away- flight), and then having the person who started the entire event kill the stranger claiming self-defense.

So you don't actually have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. Martin was not behaving in a concerned or frightened manner. If he was concerned or frightened, he would have gone home. There was plenty of time.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Zimmerman has told a credible story indicating he acted in self defense. The prosecution has done little or nothing to indicate that it was not self defense.

The defense begins to present their case of self defense today, they haven't presented a "credible" story yet. The prosecution has proved the Zimmerman killed Martin.

]What?? You have not paid any attention to the trial, yet you have a strong opinion about it?

I live in Florida, it is difficult not to hear about the trial, daily, by everyone. Yes, I have a strong opinion about person that chased a person and then kills them.
I already knew Zimmerman killed Martin, everyone does. The crux of the case is the killing justified or not, thus the defense is key.

Nothing there saying the DNA should have been on the gun. Why is the prosecution presenting evidence that proves nothing? It looks like they are just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Not exactly. It means there is no evidence of struggle for Zimmerman's gun. So what we have here is a street fist fight, instigated by Zimmerman's stalking and pursuit of Martin.

Please state where you think the truck was parked. The body was found toward the north end of the row of houses, which is only a couple of hundred yards long. Martin was staying near the south end of the row of houses. Even if he was closer to the house than the truck, which I don't think is the case, that still wouldn't mean he wasn't walking back to his truck.

See map at weblink:Interactive: Map of Trayvon Martin shooting death | MiamiHerald.com

What do you think is significant about what Zimmerman knew or didn't know about the stand-your-ground law? This isn't even as stand-your-ground case. How would it help or hurt his case if he knew or didn't know the law?

He lied. It goes against his credibility.

So you don't actually have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. Martin was not behaving in a concerned or frightened manner. If he was concerned or frightened, he would have gone home. There was plenty of time.

I actually do have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story, strange you state this. Martin initially ran away once he realized someone was following him. Given the location of the 7-eleven, Martin was going home until Zimmerman interceded. People behave differently under duress. Some follow the classic flight or fight behavior, while others improvise given the circumstances. I can understand where if you are being pursued, you wouldn't want to led potential assailant to your residence. Perhaps it was for this reason Martin may have chosen to stop running and stand his ground.

From what I know about the case, Zimmerman's version of the events simply doesn't sound right. I don't buy that Zimmerman couldn't find Martin, and was then attacked.




Ignore the "assumed paths," because I'm don't know if they're accurate. I'm more intertested in noting the distances. If the car is accurately placed, that means Zimmerman would have run about 50-70 yards, as it is a fact that Martin was shot about 70 yards from the place he was staying. If Zimmerman was only trying to talk to Martin or something like that, you wouldn't think he'd have gotten out of his car. He easily could have driven along side Martin and said something like, "Hey I just want to talk to you." I think that Zimmerman getting out of his car to chase Martin implies that his intent was to restrain.

That leads me to the conclusion that, after the confrontation, Zimmerman initiated the altercation by trying keep Martin from leaving. If Zimmerman was trying to keep Martin from leaving, Martin was responding in self-defense, and was excessive in doing so. Having said that, this would not change the fact that Zimmerman had initiated the altercation - which resulted in Martin's death. Therefore Zimmerman would be guilty of Manslaughter, if not Murder in the Second Degree.

Edit: Mojo's link to the Miami Herald's map shows that the map I found inaccurately places the distance of the car. That, however, begs to question why it was taking so long for Zimmerman to return to his vehicle. At 7:13:38, Zimmerman's phone call with the police had ended. That means he should have been on his way back to his SUV by then - and that's at the very least, as they had already told him not to proceed following Martin around 7:11:43. That means that Zimmerman is hanging around for a good 3-4 minutes... Why?

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Zimmerman has told a credible story indicating he acted in self defense. The prosecution has done little or nothing to indicate that it was not self defense.

The defense begins to present their case of self defense today, they haven't presented a "credible" story yet. The prosecution has proved the Zimmerman killed Martin.

]What?? You have not paid any attention to the trial, yet you have a strong opinion about it?

I live in Florida, it is difficult not to hear about the trial, daily, by everyone. Yes, I have a strong opinion about person that chased a person and then kills them.
I already knew Zimmerman killed Martin, everyone does. The crux of the case is the killing justified or not, thus the defense is key.

Nothing there saying the DNA should have been on the gun. Why is the prosecution presenting evidence that proves nothing? It looks like they are just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Not exactly. It means there is no evidence of struggle for Zimmerman's gun. So what we have here is a street fist fight, instigated by Zimmerman's stalking and pursuit of Martin.

I disagree with the bolded statement above. The defense should never be the key to a criminal case. If the prosecution does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the proper verdict is not guilty, even if the defense does nothing at all. While you seem to recognize that there are other elements to murder than the simple fact of a killing, for some reason you want to put the burden of proof on the defense.

Regarding the instigation, you are making up facts. There is no proof that Zimmerman instigated anything.

Please state where you think the truck was parked. The body was found toward the north end of the row of houses, which is only a couple of hundred yards long. Martin was staying near the south end of the row of houses. Even if he was closer to the house than the truck, which I don't think is the case, that still wouldn't mean he wasn't walking back to his truck.

See map at weblink:Interactive: Map of Trayvon Martin shooting death | MiamiHerald.com

Your link seems to show that Zimmerman was quite close to his vehicle.

What do you think is significant about what Zimmerman knew or didn't know about the stand-your-ground law? This isn't even as stand-your-ground case. How would it help or hurt his case if he knew or didn't know the law?

He lied. It goes against his credibility.

The so-called lie was on Hannity's show. The prosecutions star witness, Rachel Jeantel, lied under oath. Will you discount her testimony as well.

So you don't actually have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. Martin was not behaving in a concerned or frightened manner. If he was concerned or frightened, he would have gone home. There was plenty of time.

I actually do have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story, strange you state this. Martin initially ran away once he realized someone was following him. Given the location of the 7-eleven, Martin was going home until Zimmerman interceded. People behave differently under duress. Some follow the classic flight or fight behavior, while others improvise given the circumstances. I can understand where if you are being pursued, you wouldn't want to led potential assailant to your residence. Perhaps it was for this reason Martin may have chosen to stop running and stand his ground.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was.

Er, I'm only going to bother with two points that have been made. One being the loudness of the gun, the other being if Zimmerman had enough provocation to fire said weapon. I've shot 9mm handguns, quite a few. They can be loud, causing the distinct ringing you get after discharging almost any handgun. However, a 9mm is not deafening, and I can easily have conversations with fellow shooters after discharging an entire magazine "9-10rnds in this case, and with a slightly louder .40" After the discharge of one 9mm cartridge, you'd have almost no loss in hearing. Couple that with the possibility that the gun was close to/pressed against Martin's chest, the sound deadens even more.

Provocation? Martin was supposedly on top of Zimmerman, and performing something similar to a ground-and-pound technique that you can see commonly during MMA matches. The ground-and-pound allows for A LOT of leverage, and even a very small individual could successfully kill/knock-out an adult of Zimmerman's size. Couple that with having your head lying on pavement, and you have a situation where you could be rendered defenseless "unconscious" or even dead in a matter of just a few punches. What more could you want to justify the handgun being drawn?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was.

While I understand any attempt at accusing Zimmerman of being the instigator of the altercation is purely speculative - and that he was justified in wielding the firearm after Martin continued to assail him - why did it take so long for Zimmerman to return to his SUV? If you look at the routes on the map I posted (and account for where the SUV was actually located), his vehicle was 30-40 yards from the scene - yet he could not make it back to his vehicle within 4 minutes?

If Zimmerman took the Southern route his intent is clear, because there is absolutely no reason for Zimmerman to return to his SUV through the backyard pathway. If Zimmerman took the same route that Trayvon allegedly took, we are left to question why we was hanging around in the pathway. After getting out of his vehicle, and running for about 15 seconds, he was told to stop. He could have made it to the scene of the shooting by then, but if he didn't the intent is once again clear - he pursued Martin in spite of being told not to.

So bearing that in mind, what's more likely: Zimmerman was attacked, or, Zimmerman hung around in hopes of catching Martin - which then led to and altercation?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1 & 2. I still don't see what you're getting at. Are you saying he wasn't shot at close range? That would be at odds with what the forensic experts say.

3. From Wiki: "Police reports state Zimmerman "appeared to have a broken and a bloody nose and swelling of his face." Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution.^[198] ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek."

4.It's much more likely that the guy on the bottom getting beaten would scream, rather than the guy on top doing the beating.

5. I find you hard to believe.

6. Do you have any testimony from forensic experts, or are you just speculating?

7. What lie are you referring to, and how do you know what Zimmerman said? If Trayvon hadn't started pounding on George, he would have averted the trajedy.

8. Zimmerman wasn't on watch, nor was he stalking.

9. Calling somebody an asshole does not incriminate oneself in a murder.

1 & 2. Let's say that Zimmerman put the muzzle against Martin's chest and fired. And no blood came out? No one had any concern that Martin, supposedly astraddle Zimmerman who was supine, didn't issue any blood onto Zimmerman, who had open wounds? Supposedly no blood gushed out and/or gravity did not cause any of it to fall on Zimmerman? Not even one drop? I don't know why no one, including medical personnel, had no concerns about possible contamination. I don't remember seeing any photo/video of Zimmerman's front with anything that looked like blood. So then, how far away was Martin from Zimmerman? Does any *evidence* point to point blank?

3. Okay, but I don't see Zimmerman's injuries in any videos or photos.

4. Any beating marks on Martin? The US doesn't have coroner's hearings like the UK does, and it leaves the public in the dark.

5. I believe you find me hard to believe. I still know the deafening sensation from being around people firing firearms, and your disbelief cannot cancel/disprove that fact.

6. I'm speculating based on what I know about guns and ballistics.

7. Zimmerman claimed he lied by telling Martin that he wasn't following him. Who knows what actually happened? That's what the trial intends to prove.

8. He was stalking Martin whether or not he was on watch. The watch organization canceled his membership because he was over the top regardless of whether or not he was on watch.

9. It certainly does incriminate one in murder as calling someone an "asshole" shows malice aforethought, one of the elements of murder.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was.

While I understand any attempt at accusing Zimmerman of being the instigator of the altercation is purely speculative - and that he was justified in wielding the firearm after Martin continued to assail him - why did it take so long for Zimmerman to return to his SUV? If you look at the routes on the map I posted (and account for where the SUV was actually located), his vehicle was 30-40 yards from the scene - yet he could not make it back to his vehicle within 4 minutes?

If Zimmerman took the Southern route his intent is clear, because there is absolutely no reason for Zimmerman to return to his SUV through the backyard pathway. If Zimmerman took the same route that Trayvon allegedly took, we are left to question why we was hanging around in the pathway. After getting out of his vehicle, and running for about 15 seconds, he was told to stop. He could have made it to the scene of the shooting by then, but if he didn't the intent is once again clear - he pursued Martin in spite of being told not to.

So bearing that in mind, what's more likely: Zimmerman was attacked, or, Zimmerman hung around in hopes of catching Martin - which then led to and altercation?

The location of the SUV is not entirely clear, and a different location is shown on the sketch you posted versus the Miami Herald interactive map posted above. Zimmerman was not told not to pursue Martin. As the dispatcher testified, they do not tell people what to do, and have no authority to do so. Zimmerman's signed statement said that he went looking for house address numbers, so after he quit chasing Trayvon, he might have gone out to the other street to look. According to this timeline, there was less than 2 minutes between the time Zimmerman said he quit following and the time the call ended.
Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 7:11:59 — In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says, "Yes." Dispatcher states, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replies, "OK."

• 7:12:00 - 7:12:59 — The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.^[16]

• 7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know where Martin is.
• 7:13:41 — Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends

An update after finding and reading the autopsy report.

6. The projectile was a hollow point bullet. It fragmented and pierced the pleural sac in addition to the heart. Martin suffered a double pneumothorax with more than a half gallon of blood (about 45% of his blood volume) in the pleural cavity. I don't see how he could remain conscious for long due to both lack of blood pressure and lack of oxygenated blood. So the autopsy was consistent with my speculations.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I disagree with the bolded statement above. The defense should never be the key to a criminal case. If the prosecution does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the proper verdict is not guilty, even if the defense does nothing at all. While you seem to recognize that there are other elements to murder than the simple fact of a killing, for some reason you want to put the burden of proof on the defense.

Disagree as much as your like. It seems at this time, my point of view fits to how the defense is presenting their self-defense case. The Defense didn't rest today claiming the Prosecution didn't meet it's burden of proof, and they began laying out their defense.

Regarding the instigation, you are making up facts. There is no proof that Zimmerman instigated anything.

Am I? Zimmerman was following Martin? Is following strangers in a community a standard practice now? Was Martin's body found near Zimmerman's vehicle? No. Zimmerman's statements claim he was in his vehicle and he stepped out to find what street he was on. Are streets signs now located on grass pathways between homes? Looking at the map, I can see no street signs in the pathway to home where Martin was staying. Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 a lot, 50 times in an eight year period. I agree with the Prosecutor's assessment that Zimmerman was overzealous in pursuing people he deemed suspicious.

]Your link seems to show that Zimmerman was quite close to his vehicle.

I refer to my statement above. Was Zimmerman's vehicle parked on pathway between the grass and homes or was it on the street? How did Zimmerman get from the street to where the body was found? The reasonable inference is that he followed Martin there. Do you know of another means of how Zimmerman could have been at the location where Martin's body was found, if he was in/standing next to his vehicle?

The so-called lie was on Hannity's show. The prosecutions star witness, Rachel Jeantel, lied under oath. Will you discount her testimony as well.

Of course I would, wouldn't you. Rachel Jeantel isn't on trial though, she didn't kill anyone, and Zimmerman happens to be the only "witness" to the actual shooting.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was

Zimmerman seems to have left his vehicle and followed Martin at least to the location of the body. There is that smoking gun in Zimmerman's hand as well. No evidence shows that Martin is in the process of committing a burglary. He seems to be a person just going home after a trip to get some candy and pop.

Teen who spoke to Trayvon Martin moments before his death testifies in Zimmerman trial

I have long been annoyed at the television media's portrayal of this story. Consistently, old pictures have been used, which portray Martin as relatively boyish and innocent, and Zimmerman as younger and bulkier than they were at the time of the incident. Consistently, the incident has been portrayed as a white guy killing a black guy. Zimmerman is in fact a man of mixed race, with more hispanic than white ancestors, and even some black. The media seems to have made every effort to whip up racist sentiment in this case, apparently in an effort to improve ratings, a strategy I find reprehensible. Sadly, journalistic ethics in the United States is a concept that seems to have disappeared.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I disagree with the bolded statement above. The defense should never be the key to a criminal case. If the prosecution does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the proper verdict is not guilty, even if the defense does nothing at all. While you seem to recognize that there are other elements to murder than the simple fact of a killing, for some reason you want to put the burden of proof on the defense.

Disagree as much as your like. It seems at this time, my point of view fits to how the defense is presenting their self-defense case. The Defense didn't rest today claiming the Prosecution didn't meet it's burden of proof, and they began laying out their defense.

Of course they will put on a defense, because jurors are not always objective or able to put the pieces together on their own.

Regarding the instigation, you are making up facts. There is no proof that Zimmerman instigated anything.

Am I? Zimmerman was following Martin? Is following strangers in a community a standard practice now? Was Martin's body found near Zimmerman's vehicle? No. Zimmerman's statements claim he was in his vehicle and he stepped out to find what street he was on. Are streets signs now located on grass pathways between homes? Looking at the map, I can see no street signs in the pathway to home where Martin was staying. Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 a lot, 50 times in an eight year period. I agree with the Prosecutor's assessment that Zimmerman was overzealous in pursuing people he deemed suspicious.

]Your link seems to show that Zimmerman was quite close to his vehicle.

I refer to my statement above. Was Zimmerman's vehicle parked on pathway between the grass and homes or was it on the street? How did Zimmerman get from the street to where the body was found? The reasonable inference is that he followed Martin there. Do you know of another means of how Zimmerman could have been at the location where Martin's body was found, if he was in/standing next to his vehicle?

He was following Martin until the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that. Is following someone a crime?

The so-called lie was on Hannity's show. The prosecutions star witness, Rachel Jeantel, lied under oath. Will you discount her testimony as well.

Of course I would, wouldn't you. Rachel Jeantel isn't on trial though, she didn't kill anyone, and Zimmerman happens to be the only "witness" to the actual shooting.

No. The thing she lied about was why she didn't attend Trayvon's funeral, which is not material to the case. If you discount testimony from everybody who ever lied about anything, you could never believe any eyewitnesses. Similarly, Zimmerman's knowledge of the stand your ground law is not material. Stand your ground law only applies to the right to fight, instead of fleeing from an attacker. Zimmerman did not have the chance to flee if he was pinned to the ground, so the normal self-defense law applies.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

1 & 2. Let's say that Zimmerman put the muzzle against Martin's chest and fired. And no blood came out? No one had any concern that Martin, supposedly astraddle Zimmerman who was supine, didn't issue any blood onto Zimmerman, who had open wounds? Supposedly no blood gushed out and/or gravity did not cause any of it to fall on Zimmerman? Not even one drop? I don't know why no one, including medical personnel, had no concerns about possible contamination. I don't remember seeing any photo/video of Zimmerman's front with anything that looked like blood. So then, how far away was Martin from Zimmerman? Does any *evidence* point to point blank?

Firearms analyst: Trayvon Martin was shot at point-blank range

3. Okay, but I don't see Zimmerman's injuries in any videos or photos.

You haven't tried very hard. Look on the Wikipedia page for trayvon martin shooting.

4. Any beating marks on Martin? The US doesn't have coroner's hearings like the UK does, and it leaves the public in the dark.

No marks on Trayvon except bullet hole and skinned knuckle.

5. I believe you find me hard to believe. I still know the deafening sensation from being around people firing firearms, and your disbelief cannot cancel/disprove that fact.

6. I'm speculating based on what I know about guns and ballistics.

7. Zimmerman claimed he lied by telling Martin that he wasn't following him. Who knows what actually happened? That's what the trial intends to prove.

8. He was stalking Martin whether or not he was on watch. The watch organization canceled his membership because he was over the top regardless of whether or not he was on watch.

No, stalking would be following with the intent to assault him. He just wanted to see where Martin was going so he could tell the cops when they arrived. He had every right to keep an eye out for suspicious characters.

9. It certainly does incriminate one in murder as calling someone an "asshole" shows malice aforethought, one of the elements of murder.

Did you ever call anyone an asshole? If so, did that indicate an intent to murder them?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So you don't actually have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. Martin was not behaving in a concerned or frightened manner. If he was concerned or frightened, he would have gone home. There was plenty of time.

Just out of curiosity, if a stranger is chasing you on a dark evening, would you lead this stranger to your house?

Would you allow them to see where you lived?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was.

Well firstly, Zimmerman was not in uniform, nor was he driving a vehicle which identified him as being connected to the Neighborhood Watch patrol in that area. He was also armed, which goes against Neighborhood Watch policy, not to mention he pursued Martin, also against Neighborhood Watch policy. Zimmerman has claimed that he was not on patrol that night. Which leads us to question how and why he then decided to chase Martin that night on the mere suspicion that Martin was a possible thief. Apparently one's clothing and skin color makes one a possible thief, which is something for another thread.

Looking at Zimmerman's actions, they were aggressive. He was armed. He ignored the order from the 911 operator to not pursue Martin. He then chased Martin down a dark street. That to me is aggressive. I don't know about you, but a strange man deciding to follow me and then chase me at night is something I would consider to be aggressive.

That aside, it is also worth noting that there was also a lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails.

This person is struggling with him to grab his gun and there is no DNA evidence of that struggle? What exactly was Martin grabbing if it wasn't the gun or Zimmerman's hands to try and get control of that gun, so much so that Zimmerman had to shoot him as a result? I am surprised the prosecutor did not push that further. Because if you are struggling against someone to try and grab something out of their hands, you will either scrabble with them for the object they are holding or grab at their hands with your own hands and fingers. To have no DNA transfer to the gun and none under Martin's fingernails is strange if there was a struggle for the gun that Zimmerman was holding.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So you don't actually have a reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. Martin was not behaving in a concerned or frightened manner. If he was concerned or frightened, he would have gone home. There was plenty of time.

Just out of curiosity, if a stranger is chasing you on a dark evening, would you lead this stranger to your house?

Would you allow them to see where you lived?

I'd probably go inside and lock the door. What I wouldn't do is go back toward where I saw the stranger.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is not sufficient to show that Martin may not have been the aggressor. You have to show that Zimmerman was.

Well firstly, Zimmerman was not in uniform, nor was he driving a vehicle which identified him as being connected to the Neighborhood Watch patrol in that area. He was also armed, which goes against Neighborhood Watch policy, not to mention he pursued Martin, also against Neighborhood Watch policy.

The handgun was concealed, so should not have affected Trayvon's actions.

Zimmerman has claimed that he was not on patrol that night. Which leads us to question how and why he then decided to chase Martin that night on the mere suspicion that Martin was a possible thief. Apparently one's clothing and skin color makes one a possible thief, which is something for another thread.

Why play the race card here? There is no evidence of a racial motive. Trayvon was not a permanent resident. He was acting strange, peering into houses, according to what Zimmerman told the dispatcher.

Looking at Zimmerman's actions, they were aggressive. He was armed. He ignored the order from the 911 operator to not pursue Martin. He then chased Martin down a dark street. That to me is aggressive. I don't know about you, but a strange man deciding to follow me and then chase me at night is something I would consider to be aggressive.

Don't make up facts. The police dispatcher did not order him to do anything, and there is no evidence that he ignored the dispatcher's request, suggestion or whatever you want to call it.

That aside, it is also worth noting that there was also a lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails.

This person is struggling with him to grab his gun and there is no DNA evidence of that struggle? What exactly was Martin grabbing if it wasn't the gun or Zimmerman's hands to try and get control of that gun, so much so that Zimmerman had to shoot him as a result? I am surprised the prosecutor did not push that further. Because if you are struggling against someone to try and grab something out of their hands, you will either scrabble with them for the object they are holding or grab at their hands with your own hands and fingers. To have no DNA transfer to the gun and none under Martin's fingernails is strange if there was a struggle for the gun that Zimmerman was holding.

Maybe he grabbed for the gun, then Zimmerman grabbed his arm. Maybe the DNA degraded due to the moisture, or there just wasn't enough of it. There's lots of scenarios where there wouldn't be DNA under the fingernails.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I'd probably go inside and lock the door. What I wouldn't do is go back toward where I saw the stranger.

You would lead a stranger, who you were afraid of, and who was chasing you, to your abode?

I wouldn't.

Because I would not want that person to know where I lived.

The handgun was concealed, so should not have affected Trayvon's actions.

But it has everything to do with Zimmerman's actions. Why was he patrolling the streets while armed in the first place? What was he hoping to achieve? He was not supposed to be on the Neighborhood Watch patrol, by his own admittance. So what exactly did he think he was doing?

Why play the race card here? There is no evidence of a racial motive. Trayvon was not a permanent resident. He was acting strange, peering into houses, according to what Zimmerman told the dispatcher.

And yet, he did not claim that Martin was trespassing, but was walking and looking at people's houses.

I tend to look around me when I walk, and yes, sometimes if a plant or a garden catches my eye, I will even stop and look at it and appreciate it. Most people would do the same. This is not a crime, nor is it suspicious. Why did it make Martin look suspicious when he did it?

Don't make up facts. The police dispatcher did not order him to do anything, and there is no evidence that he ignored the dispatcher's request, suggestion or whatever you want to call it.

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of lying?

The Sanford cop who first investigated the Trayvon Martin killing said Tuesday he believed George Zimmerman continued following the teen after a police dispatcher “told him not to.”

Trayvon Martin murder trial: Sanford cop testifies George Zimmerman kept following teen, profiling him - NY Daily News

De la Rionda replayed a portion of the Feb. 29 interview tape in court, in which Zimmerman says, "They told me not to follow him. I wasn't following him, I was just going in the same direction.""That's following," Serino said on the tape.
O'Mara asked whether Serino had any evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a non-emergency dispatcher told him not to.
"I would answer I have information, yes," Serino said. "Just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after the confrontation. That's my interpretation. There was some following."

---

Playing the Feb. 29 interview tape in court, de la Rionda highlighted portions of the interview during which investigators questioned Zimmerman's story, including his claim that he wasn't following Martin. De la Rionda also pointed out Zimmerman claimed that after he shot Martin, he spread out the teen's arms. But a photo taken immediately after the shooting shows Martin's arms under his body.

George Zimmerman trial: Chris Serino, lead detective in case of Trayvon Martin killing, takes stand again Tuesday - Crimesider - CBS News

Perhaps you have an excuse for why Zimmerman lied about Martin's body and what he did immediately after the shooting.

Also, Martin was found lying face down on the ground with his hands under his body and Zimmerman was standing near the body? So Zimmerman pushed him off after shooting him and then rolled him back over onto his front and put his hands underneath him? But he claimed to have spread out Martin's arms, and yet, when police arrived immediately on the scene, Martin's hands were underneath him. Or are you going to accuse me of lying or making stuff up about what Martin claimed himself in this interviews with the police which are clearly documented?

Maybe he grabbed for the gun, then Zimmerman grabbed his arm. Maybe the DNA degraded due to the moisture, or there just wasn't enough of it. There's lots of scenarios where there wouldn't be DNA under the fingernails.

Let's just say you are struggling with someone who has a gun and you are trying to take control of it. Are you telling me that at no time are you able to get your hands on the gun or the person's hand(s) that is holding the gun? Which would mean that if the person is able to keep that gun away from you by grabbing your arm (as you stated in your own example), then you aren't exactly posing such a risk that he would then bring the gun up, and bring it within range of you to shoot you in the chest at point blank range.

Because this is what I do not understand.

Zimmerman claims that Martin went for his gun. And yet, there is no DNA to support this, not on the gun or under Martin's fingernails or Martin's clothing. And if someone is going for your gun and you are trying to keep it away from them, and you are supposedly underneath them, would you bring that gun up within range of their hands (hands that were apparently trying to grab the gun from you) and point it at their chest point blank and shoot? Or would you keep trying to keep the gun away from them? And lets just say you are Martin, and some guy underneath you has a gun and is pointing it at your chest, you wouldn't try and get it away from your chest (point blank range means it was very close to his chest) by grabbing violently at his hands or the gun itself? If someone was holding a weapon against my chest, I would be gouging my fingernails into their hands to get them to drop it. And yet, it is as if Martin did not fight back against that gun when he pointed it at Martin's chest, which is strange, don't you think? That he somehow managed to bring that gun up in the middle of a fight for said gun, and there is no defensive DNA on Martin to indicate he was fighting or struggling with him to stop him from shooting him and to grab the gun from him (which Zimmerman claimed he tried to do)..

You might not want to go home. That would be understandable. It doesn't explain why Trayvon would double back.

The prosecution did not lay out a timeline, that I am aware of, which supports the cop's contention about following. Maybe I missed that. Also they are trying to keep the defense from playing an animated video of how they think it happened. The cop also said he didn't think Zimmerman was lying.

You are just speculating about what Trayvon was doing that made George suspicious. You don't know.

The position of the body doesn't seem to be a problem to me. He was still alive for a few minutes.

It doesn't seem to me that the DNA was a big issue. I didn't see how that played out in court.

ETA: Zimmerman wasn't patrolling with a gun. He was driving home. People who carry a concealed weapon tend to carry it with them at all times. You never know when you might need it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

...I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

It seems to me that if there is no Trayvon-DNA on the gun then there is *no evidence* that Trayvon handled the gun in any way. Everything else seems to be *speculation* and precisely what you want to avoid in this thread. Right? So if the defense attorney(s) want to establish that Trayvon touched the gun they have yet to provide evidence that he did so.

Originally Posted by This Desert Man

Originally Posted by Harold14370

...I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

It seems to me that if there is no Trayvon-DNA on the gun then there is *no evidence* that Trayvon handled the gun in any way. Everything else seems to be *speculation* and precisely what you want to avoid in this thread. Right? So if the defense attorney(s) want to establish that Trayvon touched the gun they have yet to provide evidence that he did so.

Once again, you are putting a burden of proof on the defense. You people are like a lynch mob.

Self defense murder cases are frustrating for everyone, because if we presume the person who killed in self defense to be innocent, we are therefore presuming the person who was killed to be guilty.

However the person who was killed also had a right to be presumed innocent. So we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

That aside, it is also worth noting that there was also a lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails.

This person is struggling with him to grab his gun and there is no DNA evidence of that struggle? What exactly was Martin grabbing if it wasn't the gun or Zimmerman's hands to try and get control of that gun, so much so that Zimmerman had to shoot him as a result? I am surprised the prosecutor did not push that further. Because if you are struggling against someone to try and grab something out of their hands, you will either scrabble with them for the object they are holding or grab at their hands with your own hands and fingers. To have no DNA transfer to the gun and none under Martin's fingernails is strange if there was a struggle for the gun that Zimmerman was holding.

You seem to have a really romantic view of DNA technology. A guy grabbing a gun in a fight *might* leave a detectable amount of DNA. It also might leave too little DNA to detect.

The technology has not yet reached the point where it can find one single, lone skin cell with your DNA on it in the midst of all the dust, polish, paint or other residues that might be covering a gun.

If it were that good, then probably there would be 20 or 30 people who's DNA was on it. There's trace amounts of skin cells floating around as dust in any room that has people in it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by This Desert Man

Originally Posted by Harold14370

...I would like us to stick to an examination of the evidence and keep away from nonsense like someone's ability to read cursive handwriting, or ad hominem type arguments like whether someone is a "wannabe" this or that.

One thing I wondered about was the testimony of the medical examiner that there was none of Trayvon's DNA on the gun. This was supposed to indicate that he did not grab the gun and try to take it away from George. On cross-examination the ME admitted that DNA evidence could degrade due to moisture or heat, but would one expect to see DNA on something just from handling it? I thought there had to be some bodily fluids involved.

It seems to me that if there is no Trayvon-DNA on the gun then there is *no evidence* that Trayvon handled the gun in any way. Everything else seems to be *speculation* and precisely what you want to avoid in this thread. Right? So if the defense attorney(s) want to establish that Trayvon touched the gun they have yet to provide evidence that he did so.

Once again, you are putting a burden of proof on the defense. You people are like a lynch mob.

Really? I don't think so at all. I didn't say that the absence of evidence (that Trayvon handled the weapon) was anything more than that: an absence of evidence that Trayvon handled the weapon. I didn't say the defense was under any burden to prove that Trayvon handled the weapon. I said that if the defense attorney(s) want to establish it... I'm fully aware and supportive of the fact that the defense could theoretically sit with it's hands folded and do nothing in terms of "proving". So, I think you are reading into my remarks more than what I actually said. Oh, and by the way whether you choose to believe or not I personally have no pre-conceived verdict in my own mind. So, I should add that if the prosecuting attorney(s) want to establish that Trayvon did *not* handle the weapon, then they at least have it on their side that there's no DNA evidence to make a juror think otherwise.

My apologies for misinterpreting.

I'm not so sure it is necessary to show that Trayvon was going for the gun, as we know he was beating George's head into the concrete. In today's testimony by the defense's forensic expert, it was brought out that George had his head hit into the concrete a number of times, and it was possible to have severe head injury without visible external injuries. He had sufficient reason to fear for his life.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

My apologies for misinterpreting.

I'm not so sure it is necessary to show that Trayvon was going for the gun, as we know he was beating George's head into the concrete. In today's testimony by the defense's forensic expert, it was brought out that George had his head hit into the concrete a number of times, and it was possible to have severe head injury without visible external injuries. He had sufficient reason to fear for his life.

Thanks. Likewise my apologies for my clumsiness in conveying my thoughts. The forensic expert's testimony is certainly *evidence*, and it lends to the effort to provide the jurors with an idea of what Mr. Zimmerman's state of mind was.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You might not want to go home. That would be understandable. It doesn't explain why Trayvon would double back.

The prosecution did not lay out a timeline, that I am aware of, which supports the cop's contention about following. Maybe I missed that. Also they are trying to keep the defense from playing an animated video of how they think it happened. The cop also said he didn't think Zimmerman was lying.

You are just speculating about what Trayvon was doing that made George suspicious. You don't know.

The position of the body doesn't seem to be a problem to me. He was still alive for a few minutes.

It doesn't seem to me that the DNA was a big issue. I didn't see how that played out in court.

ETA: Zimmerman wasn't patrolling with a gun. He was driving home. People who carry a concealed weapon tend to carry it with them at all times. You never know when you might need it.

But we do know what he was doing from Zimmerman's 911 call, where he told the operator that Martin was walking slowly in the rain and looking around at houses.

It is not illegal to walk in the rain and look at houses. So why do you think he looked suspicious? What made someone walking in the rain look suspicious?

Look at it from Martin's point of view. How would you, a teenager, view a strange man sitting in an SUV staring at you and following you? Would you run away if that person gets out of his car and starts following you? Would you possibly turn back and make sure the guy was no longer following you before going home?

The position of his body is very important because Zimmerman told the police he had spread his arms out after shooting him, the police arrived and Martin was lying with his hands underneath his body.

Next time, before you accuse people of making stuff up, please get your facts straight and at least apologise afterwards.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

But we do know what he was doing from Zimmerman's 911 call, where he told the operator that Martin was walking slowly in the rain and looking around at houses.

It is not illegal to walk in the rain and look at houses. So why do you think he looked suspicious? What made someone walking in the rain look suspicious?

George is not the most articulate guy and he may not have described what he saw very thoroughly. Trayvon might have been walking in people's yards, peeking in windows, or something.

Look at it from Martin's point of view. How would you, a teenager, view a strange man sitting in an SUV staring at you and following you? Would you run away if that person gets out of his car and starts following you? Would you possibly turn back and make sure the guy was no longer following you before going home?

Not sure, but eventually somebody threw a punch. That somebody was Trayvon. That's where it went from a big misunderstanding to an assault and battery.

The position of his body is very important because Zimmerman told the police he had spread his arms out after shooting him, the police arrived and Martin was lying with his hands underneath his body.

Why couldn't he have rolled over if he was still alive? What incentive would George have had to lie about spreading his arms out? We now know from the evidence presented that Trayvon was on top of George, leaning over him, when he was shot. We know this because the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the shirt and several inches from his chest. So, what do you think happened that George was trying to hide?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

He was following Martin until the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that. Is following someone a crime?

In some cases, it is. You've never heard of stalking or road rage, where one person follows another to induce terror?
Do you not comprehend the being followed by a stranger would induce panic or terror in a victim? Perhaps you should try pursing strangers, run them down when they attempt to flee, record their response, and report them back to this forum (/sarcasm. please don't try this. You may end up being punched in the nose or bashed in the head. That person would have adrenaline pumping through their system from the flight response which may turn to anger and then retaliation....unless you bring a gun with you).

No. The thing she lied about was why she didn't attend Trayvon's funeral, which is not material to the case.

Wrong. She has lied on matters that were material to the case.

Jeantel testified that she believed the cries were Martin's because "Trayvon has kind of a baby voice." Defense attorney Don West challenged that, claiming she was less certain in a previous deposition.
Jeantel also explained that she had initially lied about her age -- she claimed to be 16 -- to protect her privacy when she was initially contacted by an attorney for Martin's family to give a recorded statement over the telephone about what she knew about the few moments before Martin's encounter with Zimmerman. She was expected to finish her testimony on Thursday at 9 a.m.

If you discount testimony from everybody who ever lied about anything, you could never believe any eyewitnesses.

Yes, there is that risk when you have a case where the only eyewitness is the shooter, and the victim was talking to another person on the cell-phone. You place less weight on eye-witness testimony due to the inherent biases of people(e.g. memory degrades, and senses can be fooled).

Similarly, Zimmerman's knowledge of the stand your ground law is not material.

For some unknown reason you are failing to comprehend that once a person has been caught lying it is damaging to their character and makes their testimony suspect. Again Zimmerman is the only living eye-witness to the how both parties came into physical contact and the actual shooting. He has some knowledge of the law, which could be used cover up an error in his judgement.

Stand your ground law only applies to the right to fight, instead of fleeing from an attacker. Zimmerman did not have the chance to flee if he was pinned to the ground, so the normal self-defense law applies.

I don't see how this is relevant to your point. Zimmerman initiated a chase situation by following Martin for no sound reason. Zimmerman never states (in his phone call to 911) that he was fearful of his life when he initiated the pursuit of Martin. It seems that Martin was fleeing from a potential attacker and then chose to stand his ground. Martin didn't initiate following Zimmerman. You seem to be deliberately ignoring this whole matter started with Zimmerman chasing Martin. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You might not want to go home. That would be understandable. It doesn't explain why Trayvon would double back.

The prosecution did not lay out a timeline, that I am aware of, which supports the cop's contention about following. Maybe I missed that. Also they are trying to keep the defense from playing an animated video of how they think it happened. The cop also said he didn't think Zimmerman was lying.

You are just speculating about what Trayvon was doing that made George suspicious. You don't know.

The position of the body doesn't seem to be a problem to me. He was still alive for a few minutes.

It doesn't seem to me that the DNA was a big issue. I didn't see how that played out in court.

ETA: Zimmerman wasn't patrolling with a gun. He was driving home. People who carry a concealed weapon tend to carry it with them at all times. You never know when you might need it.

But we do know what he was doing from Zimmerman's 911 call, where he told the operator that Martin was walking slowly in the rain and looking around at houses.

It is not illegal to walk in the rain and look at houses. So why do you think he looked suspicious? What made someone walking in the rain look suspicious?

It's called "casing the joint". Even if a white person does it. Police respond to that behavior pattern also, not just amateurs.

I'll have to refer you to the urban dictionary, but I've read about police observing it as well. I don't think they can actually stop a person for just that, but they might follow them and watch and see if they do anything else suspicious, because maybe they might see something worth getting a warrant over.

Urban Dictionary: Case a Joint

That behavior is quite certainly justification for giving someone extra scrutiny. Anyone. Unless they live there.

Look at it from Martin's point of view. How would you, a teenager, view a strange man sitting in an SUV staring at you and following you? Would you run away if that person gets out of his car and starts following you? Would you possibly turn back and make sure the guy was no longer following you before going home?

I guess it depends on if I were really planning to rob or vandalize one of the homes. It should have been obvious to Trayvon what Zimmerman's position and purpose was.

I understand that Trayvon was young, and may not have been overly bright, but usually the smart thing to do if someone is following you is to go to a public place with lots of people and see if they keep following you. If they do, then stop and have a conversation with them about it.

Probable cause.

It's not well defined and usually is left to Officer discretion.
Probable cause is behavior that makes you suspicious that a crime is about to happen, has happened or is in the process of happening.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

He was following Martin until the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that. Is following someone a crime?

In some cases, it is. You've never heard of stalking or road rage, where one person follows another to induce terror?
Do you not comprehend the being followed by a stranger would induce panic or terror in a victim? Perhaps you should try pursing strangers, run them down when they attempt to flee, record their response, and report them back to this forum (/sarcasm. please don't try this. You may end up being punched in the nose or bashed in the head. That person would have adrenaline pumping through their system from the flight response which may turn to anger and then retaliation....unless you bring a gun with you).

No. The thing she lied about was why she didn't attend Trayvon's funeral, which is not material to the case.

Wrong. She has lied on matters that were material to the case.

Jeantel testified that she believed the cries were Martin's because "Trayvon has kind of a baby voice." Defense attorney Don West challenged that, claiming she was less certain in a previous deposition.
Jeantel also explained that she had initially lied about her age -- she claimed to be 16 -- to protect her privacy when she was initially contacted by an attorney for Martin's family to give a recorded statement over the telephone about what she knew about the few moments before Martin's encounter with Zimmerman. She was expected to finish her testimony on Thursday at 9 a.m.

I'm not getting why her age is material to the case. She didn't want to get involved, so she lied about her age, which doesn't necessarily mean she will lie about what she heard on the phone.

If you discount testimony from everybody who ever lied about anything, you could never believe any eyewitnesses.

Yes, there is that risk when you have a case where the only eyewitness is the shooter, and the victim was talking to another person on the cell-phone. You place less weight on eye-witness testimony due to the inherent biases of people(e.g. memory degrades, and senses can be fooled).

Similarly, Zimmerman's knowledge of the stand your ground law is not material.

For some unknown reason you are failing to comprehend that once a person has been caught lying it is damaging to their character and makes their testimony suspect. Again Zimmerman is the only living eye-witness to the how both parties came into physical contact and the actual shooting. He has some knowledge of the law, which could be used cover up an error in his judgement.

Stand your ground law only applies to the right to fight, instead of fleeing from an attacker. Zimmerman did not have the chance to flee if he was pinned to the ground, so the normal self-defense law applies.

I don't see how this is relevant to your point. Zimmerman initiated a chase situation by following Martin for no sound reason. Zimmerman never states (in his phone call to 911) that he was fearful of his life when he initiated the pursuit of Martin. It seems that Martin was fleeing from a potential attacker and then chose to stand his ground. Martin didn't initiate following Zimmerman. You seem to be deliberately ignoring this whole matter started with Zimmerman chasing Martin. Why is that?

We are failing to communicate here. What I'm asking is what motive Zimmerman would have to lie about his knowledge of the stand your ground law. You could only say that Martin stood his ground if he was attacked first, and defended himself instead of running away. There is no evidence for this. The only person who was attacked in the initial confrontation, based on their wounds, was Zimmerman.

Are you trying to say that Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law, and so he should have known that Martin would punch him instead of running away? But he was trying to feign ignorance of the stand your ground law, so he could claim that he expected Martin to run away instead of fight? This is getting absurd.

Naturally, you expect that a guilty defendant would lie about what happened during the crime. That's why you have a trial. You also expect a witness, including a defendant, to make lots of mistakes in trying to recall what happened. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, which is why forensic evidence carries more weight. If evidence casts doubt on the defendant's story, in a material way, not some nonessential detail, then you would think he's probably guilty.

Motive in this case may refer to shock n awe.

A KID is dead.

A lot of people will be angered by that.

So, they want someone to blame; someone they can punish.

It won't take much of questionable behavior for them to decide, "He's Guilty!"
Both of the characters of this play were engaged in questionable behavior. It is as justifiable to claim that Martin felt threatened as it is to say that Zimmerman felt his neighborhood was threatened. I do not care if he was racially profiling. No, really- I do not care.

The tragedy is that there was a death- a death of a minor- a death of an innocent minor.
But the tragedy itself does not demand that a scapegoat be found to punish.

It's tragic when a child dies of leukemia, as well.

So, here's this guy- overly zealous about protecting his neighborhood. He's the kind of guy that if he lived here, would probably have pissed me off by being nosy or whining about my garage door being open.
Should we get carried away?
He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.

Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet.

The family needs to mourn the tragedy. Seeking revenge won't bring back the kid. And that is what this concept of "justice" is. It's not something noble or glorious, it is simply revenge.

I definitely agree with this part here:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.

That should pretty much decide the whole case.

As long as Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch, and we have evidence of that, and didn't verbally threaten to attack Martin, then absolutely nothing else about this case matters in the slightest.

I like this other thing you said too.

Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet.

.

If Zimmerman didn't physically attack Martin before Martin attacked him, nor threaten to, then he showed all the restraint the law has any business expecting from him.

I'd hate to think I was legally at fault for someone violently attacking me just because I followed them for a few blocks. What if they're just being paranoid and I was simply headed to the same destination? Should I have to deal with their paranoia, just to stay alive? What kind of society would require that?

However, people who are contemplating committing a crime often are paranoid.

The really disgusting part is that the whole trial sham and the most likely guilty verdict handed out at the end of it will be to make an example of him is based on Racism. Racism that is being encouraged and supported.

Contains a lot of Explicit Language:
Racism at the Bus Stop **HD** - YouTube

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I'm not getting why her age is material to the case. She didn't want to get involved, so she lied about her age, which doesn't necessarily mean she will lie about what she heard on the phone.

So this means you "get" that her previous deposition of being unsure about her being unsure about Martin's voice and now being more certain with the passage of time should be questioned?

We are failing to communicate here. What I'm asking is what motive Zimmerman would have to lie about his knowledge of the stand your ground law. You could only say that Martin stood his ground if he was attacked first, and defended himself instead of running away. There is no evidence for this. The only person who was attacked in the initial confrontation, based on their wounds, was Zimmerman.

My point is that a when person who is known to have lied, their personal testimony comes into doubt and must be rigorously challenged. Zimmerman killed Martin there the motive to lie or omit about matters about events leading up to the shooting.

Are you trying to say that Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law, and so he should have known that Martin would punch him instead of running away? But he was trying to feign ignorance of the stand your ground law, so he could claim that he expected Martin to run away instead of fight? This is getting absurd. Naturally, you expect that a guilty defendant would lie about what happened during the crime...

I'm not saying that, read my reply above. You have drawn your own absurd conclusion from your own premise. I agree with you that Zimmerman has a potential motive to lie about events.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I'm not getting why her age is material to the case. She didn't want to get involved, so she lied about her age, which doesn't necessarily mean she will lie about what she heard on the phone.

So this means you "get" that her previous deposition of being unsure about her being unsure about Martin's voice and now being more certain with the passage of time should be questioned?

I would certainly question her ability to identify a voice on the phone, for several reasons, one being her bias in favor of Martin, another being the unreliability of any eyewitness, or earwitness testimony, and another being the audio quality of the phone. Her lie about her age would not be one of the reasons, or it would be a very, very insignificant reason.

We are failing to communicate here. What I'm asking is what motive Zimmerman would have to lie about his knowledge of the stand your ground law. You could only say that Martin stood his ground if he was attacked first, and defended himself instead of running away. There is no evidence for this. The only person who was attacked in the initial confrontation, based on their wounds, was Zimmerman.

My point is that a when person who is known to have lied, their personal testimony comes into doubt and must be rigorously challenged. Zimmerman killed Martin there the motive to lie or omit about matters about events leading up to the shooting.

Are you trying to say that Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law, and so he should have known that Martin would punch him instead of running away? But he was trying to feign ignorance of the stand your ground law, so he could claim that he expected Martin to run away instead of fight? This is getting absurd. Naturally, you expect that a guilty defendant would lie about what happened during the crime...

I'm not saying that, read my reply above. You have drawn your own absurd conclusion from your own premise. I agree with you that Zimmerman has a potential motive to lie about events.

Well, then your argument still doesn't make much sense. A defendant who pleads not guilty would be expected to have their testimony questioned. It's up to the prosecution to knock holes in their story. That hasn't been done. As a matter of fact, they don't even have to tell a story. They don't have to testify, and their lawyers can make up a fictitious, but credible story, and the judgement would be not guilty.

If Zimmerman was known to lie about coloring his hair, would that incriminate him in a murder? This so-called lie has just about the same value. You have to show that he lied in some material way, and even then, it doesn't prove he lied about everything.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Well, then your argument still doesn't make much sense. A defendant who pleads not guilty would be expected to have their testimony questioned. It's up to the prosecution to knock holes in their story. That hasn't been done. As a matter of fact, they don't even have to tell a story. They don't have to testify, and their lawyers can make up a fictitious, but credible story, and the judgement would be not guilty.

Zimmerman's defense team has chosen not to testify in court, so there is no story to knock holes into. The issue of his testimony and credibility of said testimony is now moot. I get that we disagree on the issue of Zimmerman lying, so lets move on.
This case isn't a "whodunnit" in regards to who killed Martin, it is known that it was Zimmerman. It is known in the manner he was killed. What is the focal point is was Zimmerman justified to kill Martin. Zimmerman has offered no explanation in court.

There is recorded evidence where Zimmerman states he was following Martin. Martin's body is found near where he was residing, and not next to Zimmerman's vehicle (where Zimmerman was initially sitting in). Evidence gathered from the crime scene verify there was an altercation prior to the shooting. Evidence shows that Zimmerman had non-life threatening superficial wounds on his body. There is no evidence who committed the initial battery or assault. Zimmerman reported to police that it was in self-defense, for he and Martin were grappling for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman reported he was able to turn the weapon and fire it. There is no evidence of Martin on the weapon.

So the question remains is getting your butt beat in a street fight by smaller individual (Z-5'7 185lbs;M-5'11 158lbs), from which you initiated by following a stranger and pursuing him when he flees upon recognizing that he is being followed, a valid legal justification for using lethal force? My opinion is no. I've concluded that Zimmerman was at a minimum reckless in his behavior and it (his behavior) was the key cause in the killing. I am ambivalent on whether it is 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, for either would be appropriate.

I know absolutely nothing about this case and haven't read any of this thread but I happened to come across an article about the language use of one of the witnesses. Just in case anyone is interested:
Language Log » Rachel Jeantel

Originally Posted by Strange

I know absolutely nothing about this case and haven't read any of this thread but I happened to come across an article about the language use of one of the witnesses. Just in case anyone is interested:
Language Log » Rachel Jeantel

I hadn't heard much about this case either, don't think it's being that widely reported here in the UK, cought something about it on bbc world news though and it seems like a major deal over in the States. The report seemed to suggest that the prosecution was lagging way behind, but the race issue might have some influence, not my opinion because I know very little about it, but that's the gist of the report.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

There is recorded evidence where Zimmerman states he was following Martin. Martin's body is found near where he was residing, and not next to Zimmerman's vehicle (where Zimmerman was initially sitting in). Evidence gathered from the crime scene verify there was an altercation prior to the shooting. Evidence shows that Zimmerman had non-life threatening superficial wounds on his body. There is no evidence who committed the initial battery or assault. Zimmerman reported to police that it was in self-defense, for he and Martin were grappling for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman reported he was able to turn the weapon and fire it. There is no evidence of Martin on the weapon.

If his intention were to murder Martin when he followed him, then why would he have gotten into a fist fight to begin with?

Guns are ranged weapons, you know. Best used from a distance.

So the question remains is getting your butt beat in a street fight by smaller individual (Z-5'7 185lbs;M-5'11 158lbs), from which you initiated by following a stranger and pursuing him when he flees upon recognizing that he is being followed, a valid legal justification for using lethal force? My opinion is no. I've concluded that Zimmerman was at a minimum reckless in his behavior and it (his behavior) was the key cause in the killing. I am ambivalent on whether it is 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, for either would be appropriate.

This isn't the movies where hitting someone really hard on the head knocks them out and they get up later. In real life there's potential for concussion and possibly death.

If someone is smashing your head into the pavement then your life is in imminent danger. It's incredibly dangerous to do that to somebody. That isn't the kind of move a person makes in a fist fight where they don't want to kill their opponent.


The only seriously incriminating possibility I can see for Zimmerman would be if Zimmerman had drawn his gun already when he approached Martin, not intending to shoot him, but perhaps to scare him, and then Martin "pressed the issue" by trying to get the gun away. There is a chance that could have been what happened.

That would explain why Martin was showing such disregard for Zimmerman's life (by bludgeoning his head against the pavement). And in that case manslaughter might be a justified charge against Zimmerman. For initiating a fight by drawing a gun unprovoked. Not for following. Following someone is not a reason for them to attack you.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Zimmerman's defense team has chosen not to testify in court, so there is no story to knock holes into. The issue of his testimony and credibility of said testimony is now moot.

That's not quite true. Zimmerman's statements to the police were entered into evidence. Isn't that a story for them to knock holes into?

I get that we disagree on the issue of Zimmerman lying, so lets move on.
This case isn't a "whodunnit" in regards to who killed Martin, it is known that it was Zimmerman. It is known in the manner he was killed. What is the focal point is was Zimmerman justified to kill Martin. Zimmerman has offered no explanation in court.

That is very misleading. The explanation has been presented in court by Zim's statements to the police and by testimony of an eyewitness and by forensic evidence.

There is recorded evidence where Zimmerman states he was following Martin. Martin's body is found near where he was residing, and not next to Zimmerman's vehicle (where Zimmerman was initially sitting in).

"Near" was about 400 feet away and "not next to" is irrelevant. Why would you expect it to be "next to" the vehicle? The location of the body is consistent with Zimmerman's statements.

Evidence gathered from the crime scene verify there was an altercation prior to the shooting. Evidence shows that Zimmerman had non-life threatening superficial wounds on his body.

Irrelevant. Sustaining life threatening wounds is not a pre-requisite for acting in self defense. In fact, that would be extremely stupid. Furthermore, concussion, which could be life threatening, leaves no superficial evidence.

There is no evidence who committed the initial battery or assault.

Wounds on one party and none on the other party would be some sort of evidence of who committed the battery.

Zimmerman reported to police that it was in self-defense, for he and Martin were grappling for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman reported he was able to turn the weapon and fire it. There is no evidence of Martin on the weapon.

So the question remains is getting your butt beat in a street fight by smaller individual (Z-5'7 185lbs;M-5'11 158lbs),

Irrelevant. Zim's gym instructor testified that he had no athletic ability, and would not let him fight for fear of getting him hurt. Trayvon, on the other hand, loved getting into fights, though that evidence was withheld from the jury.

from which you initiated by following a stranger and pursuing him when he flees upon recognizing that he is being followed, a valid legal justification for using lethal force?

Following someone who is not a resident of your gated community through your gated community to observe their actions is not "initiating" a fight.

My opinion is no. I've concluded that Zimmerman was at a minimum reckless in his behavior and it (his behavior) was the key cause in the killing. I am ambivalent on whether it is 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, for either would be appropriate.

The key cause is the person who started the fight. It's almost like you're saying the woman who walks through a dark alley with a short skirt on is the key cause if she gets raped. It's a dumb thing to do, but not the cause of the crime.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1 & 2. Firearms analyst: Trayvon Martin was shot at point-blank range

8. No, stalking would be following with the intent to assault him. He just wanted to see where Martin was going so he could tell the cops when they arrived. He had every right to keep an eye out for suspicious characters.

9. Did you ever call anyone an asshole? If so, did that indicate an intent to murder them?

1 & 2. So a firearms analyst claims as an expert witness (who did not witness the crime) that Zimmerman shot Martin with the gun's muzzle against Martin, and Zimmerman has already claimed to be supine with Martin astride him when he shot him, so where's the actual evidence of Martin's blood bleeding out of him, and if so, that it fell onto Zimmerman?

8. Wrong on three counts.
(a) Stalking is not "following with the intent to assault". Please support this claim.
(b) But Zimmerman told police he exited the vehicle to find and read a street sign in order to tell the police his exact location.
(c) No one has yet to present testimony or evidence that Martin was a "suspicious character". Zimmerman declined to testify (read about this below).

Zimmerman was keeping an eye out, but it was a seriously "tainted" eye. Listen to Zimmerman's call to the police. He ascribed all sorts of things to Martin that were not true (or that he has declined to prove).

9. In light of Zimmerman killing Martin after calling him an A-pejorative for no reason whatsoever, in retrospect, it becomes quite relevant to the case, and it indicates malice aforethought, ill will, etc.

Black's Law Dictionary —

Malice aforethought. A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse.

NEW!

10. Zimmerman declined to testify. Defendants will decline to testify, usually on the advice of their attorney. Interviews with former jurors has shown that this is one of the most incriminating decisions by a defendant — that is, to decline to speak in his own defense. Many people, including jurors, believe that it shows guilt. Defense attorneys will state in closing arguments that the prosecution failed to prove its accusations and that a defendant is not required to testify, which is true, but it typically has little effect on jurors' preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

1 & 2. So a firearms analyst claims as an expert witness (who did not witness the crime) that Zimmerman shot Martin with the gun's muzzle against Martin, and Zimmerman has already claimed to be supine with Martin astride him when he shot him, so where's the actual evidence of Martin's blood bleeding out of him, and if so, that it fell onto Zimmerman?

The forensic expert testified that the powder burns showed the gun was against Trayvon's shirt and a couple of inches from his chest. The shirt was blood stained. You seem to be the only one who thinks it's significant that the blood didn't get onto Zim. Even the prosecutors could only argue that Trayvon was above Zim and moving back instead of leaning over Zim. But they couldn't disprove the possibility that he was leaning over him.

8. Wrong on three counts.
(a) Stalking is not "following with the intent to assault". Please support this claim.

Here's the Florida law on stalking. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Willfully, okay. Maliciously, no evidence of that. Repeatedly, no it was one occasion.

(b) But Zimmerman told police he exited the vehicle to find and read a street sign in order to tell the police his exact location.
(c) No one has yet to present testimony or evidence that Martin was a "suspicious character". Zimmerman declined to testify (read about this below).

Zimmerman was keeping an eye out, but it was a seriously "tainted" eye. Listen to Zimmerman's call to the police. He ascribed all sorts of things to Martin that were not true (or that he has declined to prove).

9. In light of Zimmerman killing Martin after calling him an A-pejorative for no reason whatsoever, in retrospect, it becomes quite relevant to the case, and it indicates malice aforethought, ill will, etc.

Black's Law Dictionary —

Malice aforethought. A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse.

So when you called someone an asshole, did you have a predetermination to commit an illegal act?

NEW!

10. Zimmerman declined to testify. Defendants will decline to testify, usually on the advice of their attorney. Interviews with former jurors has shown that this is one of the most incriminating decisions by a defendant — that is, to decline to speak in his own defense. Many people, including jurors, believe that it shows guilt. Defense attorneys will state in closing arguments that the prosecution failed to prove its accusations and that a defendant is not required to testify, which is true, but it typically has little effect on jurors' preconceived notions.

We have the 5th amendment for a reason. Sorry you don't believe it's needed.

This trial is nauseating and thoroughly politicized.

What I would like to know is who killed Michael Hastings. And I'd like to know why that story was shoved off the radar so fast.

"...to hear the truth you've spoken twisted ny knaves to make trap for fools..."
Testifying can be a dangerous game if the opposing attorney is good at arguement, and you ain't.

Does zimmerman need to plead the fifth, or just decline to take the stand?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Evidence gathered from the crime scene verify there was an altercation prior to the shooting. Evidence shows that Zimmerman had non-life threatening superficial wounds on his body.

Irrelevant. Sustaining life threatening wounds is not a pre-requisite for acting in self defense. In fact, that would be extremely stupid. Furthermore, concussion, which could be life threatening, leaves no superficial evidence.

It amazes me how so many people lose perspective on this.
All of the sudden, you must be bleeding to death in order to act in self defense?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

We have the 5th amendment for a reason. Sorry you don't believe it's needed.

I don't think he is saying it isn't needed just that, unfortunately, it doesn't always work as intended because of human nature.

Because of the public response, claims of racism, and strong hatred expressed toward Zimmerman, putting him on the stand may only taint the viewpoints since the biased reaction against him will close all ears to anything he says.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Evidence gathered from the crime scene verify there was an altercation prior to the shooting. Evidence shows that Zimmerman had non-life threatening superficial wounds on his body.

Irrelevant. Sustaining life threatening wounds is not a pre-requisite for acting in self defense. In fact, that would be extremely stupid. Furthermore, concussion, which could be life threatening, leaves no superficial evidence.

It amazes me how so many people lose perspective on this.
All of the sudden, you must be bleeding to death in order to act in self defense?

Definitely don't want to wait until you're bleeding, or they've already maced you and stuffed you in a van before you fight back. However, before you fire a gun, I think it's important that you at least have some reason to suspect they're acting with deadly intent (or seriously malicious intent.) I'd hate to see an ordinary bar room brawl end in bloodshed just because some guy is losing a fist fight and decided to draw.

However Zimmerman clearly had that.

Here's the story on his head injuries.

George Zimmerman Head Injury | Zimmerman Injuries | Photos | Mediaite

Originally Posted by MediaITE

Zimmerman,those close to him, and his legal team have maintained that the 17-year-old had knocked him to the ground and proceeded to bash the back of his head against pavement that February night in a Sanford, Florida neighborhood.

If what they're saying is true then:

1) - Zimmerman might have had diminished capacity for rational thought - due to his head injury.

2) - Martin was using the pavement as a bludgeon. Enough hits and Zimmerman would have died. There's really no question of that. Repeated head trauma of that nature, being dished out by an adrenaline raged teenager, is a very lethal combination.

Zimmerman would have had no reason to believe that Martin intended to call an ambulance for him afterward, or even stop before his brains were splattered over the pavement. And even if he did have any reason to believe that, the head injury itself would have impaired his reasoning.

I disagree with certain points in spite of clicking the Like Button:
You cannot often predict an attackers intentions, really.
You certainly cannot know them.

You cannot assume someone is planning on stopping their assault on you when they feel you have a good chance of surviving your injuries.
Unlikely.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1 & 2. The forensic expert testified that the powder burns showed the gun was against Trayvon's shirt and a couple of inches from his chest. The shirt was blood stained. You seem to be the only one who thinks it's significant that the blood didn't get onto Zim. Even the prosecutors could only argue that Trayvon was above Zim and moving back instead of leaning over Zim. But they couldn't disprove the possibility that he was leaning over him.

8. Here's the Florida law on stalking. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Willfully, okay. Maliciously, no evidence of that. Repeatedly, no it was one occasion.

9. So when you called someone an asshole, did you have a predetermination to commit an illegal act?

10. We have the 5th amendment for a reason. Sorry you don't believe it's needed.

1 & 2. Whether or not I'm the only one who wonders why not even a couple drops of Martin's blood did not fall onto Zimmerman is not relevant. After all, Martin's pleural cavity contained 2.3 liters (almost 10 cups) of blood. But that's not my original point. My original point was that, when this happened, no one knew whether Martin's blood had pathogens that possibly contaminated Zimmerman. Apparently, no one showed any concerned that Martin's blood may have contained pathogens that might infect Zimmerman through natural orifices or damaged skin. As you yourself said, "[Martin's] shirt was blood stained", so some blood did come out.

8. Zimmerman's unfounded/paranoid comments about Martin (real suspicious ... up to no good ... on drugs or something ... something's wrong with him) is evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin maliciously. Black's Law Dictionary —

Malicious. Characterized by, or involving, malice; having, or done with, wicked, evil or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful or done intentionally without just cause or excuse or as a result of ill will.

9. Again you are talking about my life instead of the case. Please stop. After Zimmerman killed Martin, the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole becomes relevant, as does his other unfounded/paranoid comments — "... a real suspicious guy ... this guy looks like he's up to no good ... he's on drugs or something ... ... something's wrong with him ...". My personal opinion is that, more likely than not, Martin was not so much looking around at the houses, as he was trying to casually look behind him because Zimmerman was following him.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical case, let's use Gilligan's Island as an example. Let's say that everyone on the island has neutral or positive feelings toward the Skipper. However, one morning, Mr. Howell is heard to refer to the Skipper as "an asshole" for no reason whatsoever. That afternoon, the Skipper is found murdered. Who logically comes to mind as a "person of interest"? Mr. Howell, of course.

Let's try to make some progress here. Answer me this, Harold — Why do you think Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole? My own conclusion is that Zimmerman had no reason whatsoever. What's your answer?

What's even more incriminating is Zimmerman said that "they always get away". Zimmerman killed Martin; he didn't "get away".

10. You have attributed something to me that is not true. Please stop. I never mentioned the 5th Amendment; I never said it wasn't needed. In fact, I believe that, in court, one needs to take the witness stand and be asked a particular question before refusing to answer and pleading the 5th. It seems that the defense told the court that it would not call Zimmerman to testify. Probably the judge asked Zimmerman directly if he understood the consequences of his decision (because it's an important right to take the stand in one's own defense), and that he responded in the affirmative. Each side submits a list of witnesses that they might call. The defense simply failing to call the defendant as a witness is not invoking 5th Amendment privileges, although I can see where it might seem so.

What I did say is quite clear —

Interviews with former jurors has shown that this is one of the most incriminating decisions by a defendant — that is, to decline to speak in his own defense. Many people, including jurors, believe that it shows guilt.

What you are doing here is applying a standard that any person that investigates a suspicious character in their neighborhood is a "Malicious Stalker."

You also jump to wild conclusions:
"They always get away"- Martin was killed-- 'Therefore, this proves that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.'
Now, those aren't your exact words but that IS exactly what you're leading the reader to. Only problem is that it is total nonsense.

Zimmerman called 9-11.
He said those words to the dispatcher, while complaining about those that WERE committing crimes in the neighborhood did frequently get away.
This is all well established.

However, witness accounts, other than Zimmermans, had Martin On top of Zimmerman beating him.

You seem so desperate to imply a motive for guilt that you're more than willing to distort reported events. I find that very disturbing but I'm sure that pointing it out to you will not inspire you to look within yourself and try to figure out why you're doing it.

So what we have left is a man complaining about how suspects and perps always evade Police Custody and then him pursuing the suspect, to you making the Wild Leap to premeditated murder.

Have you no sense of shame? Really? No basic honor code or decency?

Do you think that doing this makes you Better than Zimmerman?

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

1 & 2. Whether or not I'm the only one who wonders why not even a couple drops of Martin's blood did not fall onto Zimmerman is not relevant. After all, Martin's pleural cavity contained 2.3 liters (almost 10 cups) of blood. But that's not my original point. My original point was that, when this happened, no one knew whether Martin's blood had pathogens that possibly contaminated Zimmerman. Apparently, no one showed any concerned that Martin's blood may have contained pathogens that might infect Zimmerman through natural orifices or damaged skin. As you yourself said, "[Martin's] shirt was blood stained", so some blood did come out.

So, on the basis of your amateur forensic analysis, you are prepared to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty.

8. Zimmerman's unfounded/paranoid comments about Martin (real suspicious ... up to no good ... on drugs or something ... something's wrong with him) is evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin maliciously. Black's Law Dictionary —

Why do you feel it is unfounded or paranoid? You weren't there and didn't see what he was doing.

Malicious. Characterized by, or involving, malice; having, or done with, wicked, evil or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful or done intentionally without just cause or excuse or as a result of ill will.

9. Again you are talking about my life instead of the case. Please stop. After Zimmerman killed Martin, the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole becomes relevant, as does his other unfounded/paranoid comments — "... a real suspicious guy ... this guy looks like he's up to no good ... he's on drugs or something ... ... something's wrong with him ...". My personal opinion is that, more likely than not, Martin was not so much looking around at the houses, as he was trying to casually look behind him because Zimmerman was following him.

You seem to be disconnected from any sense of proportion. That's why I bring up the fact that people including yourself call people names all the time. Why do you have an opinion of what Martin was doing, if you weren't there?

If you want to talk about a hypothetical case, let's use Gilligan's Island as an example. Let's say that everyone on the island has neutral or positive feelings toward the Skipper. However, one morning, Mr. Howell is heard to refer to the Skipper as "an asshole" for no reason whatsoever. That afternoon, the Skipper is found murdered. Who logically comes to mind as a "person of interest"? Mr. Howell, of course.

Are you going to convict Mr. Howell on that evidence?

Let's try to make some progress here. Answer me this, Harold — Why do you think Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole? My own conclusion is that Zimmerman had no reason whatsoever. What's your answer?

What's even more incriminating is Zimmerman said that "they always get away". Zimmerman killed Martin; he didn't "get away".

He actually didn't call Martin an asshole specifically. He was referring to the thugs, bandits and burglars who were terrorizing his neighborhood. So he had an excellent reason to follow Martin and see what he was up to.

10. You have attributed something to me that is not true. Please stop. I never mentioned the 5th Amendment; I never said it wasn't needed. In fact, I believe that, in court, one needs to take the witness stand and be asked a particular question before refusing to answer and pleading the 5th. It seems that the defense told the court that it would not call Zimmerman to testify. Probably the judge asked Zimmerman directly if he understood the consequences of his decision (because it's an important right to take the stand in one's own defense), and that he responded in the affirmative. Each side submits a list of witnesses that they might call. The defense simply failing to call the defendant as a witness is not invoking 5th Amendment privileges, although I can see where it might seem so.

You are simply wrong about that. The defendant is the only witness who has the option to testify or not. The only reason for this is the 5th amendment.

What I did say is quite clear —

Interviews with former jurors has shown that this is one of the most incriminating decisions by a defendant — that is, to decline to speak in his own defense. Many people, including jurors, believe that it shows guilt.

Problem is, you seem to approve of the jury concluding this, because you are doing it yourself.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

9. Again you are talking about my life instead of the case. Please stop. After Zimmerman killed Martin, the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole becomes relevant, as does his other unfounded/paranoid comments — "... a real suspicious guy ... this guy looks like he's up to no good ... he's on drugs or something ... ... something's wrong with him ...". My personal opinion is that, more likely than not, Martin was not so much looking around at the houses, as he was trying to casually look behind him because Zimmerman was following him.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical case, let's use Gilligan's Island as an example. Let's say that everyone on the island has neutral or positive feelings toward the Skipper. However, one morning, Mr. Howell is heard to refer to the Skipper as "an asshole" for no reason whatsoever. That afternoon, the Skipper is found murdered. Who logically comes to mind as a "person of interest"? Mr. Howell, of course.

Let's try to make some progress here. Answer me this, Harold — Why do you think Zimmerman referred to Martin as an asshole? My own conclusion is that Zimmerman had no reason whatsoever. What's your answer?

The problem with this example is that the skipper is a known entity. Martin was not a known entity. Martin might have been a criminal intending to rob a house for all we know now.

The problem is excessive bias against his race. Trying to make up for hundreds of years of oppression we somehow feel we must reflexively assume a black person isn't, can't be, and never ever would commit a crime. Real non-racism is splitting the difference and not assuming anything. Zimmerman might have actually observed legitimately suspicious behavior. Unfortunately he's a very unarticulate man and doesn't communicate his ideas very well.

If Mr. Harris began accusing the Skipper of wrongdoing, the other islanders know the skipper and would doubt the accusations. We don't know Martin.

What's even more incriminating is Zimmerman said that "they always get away". Zimmerman killed Martin; he didn't "get away".

If Zimmerman intended to harm or kill Martin, then why did he let Martin get close enough to physically fight back? That's a pretty dumb way to kill someone with a gun.

A better way would be to bring a plant weapon along with you, like a knife at least, and then shoot your victim from far enough away that they don't have a chance to get your gun from you.

I see two possibilities as being strongest:

1) - Zimmerman confronted Martin with gun drawn. However Martin realized Zimmerman didn't plan to shoot him and charged him to get the gun away. (You don't usually charge someone with a gun drawn and pointed at you unless you're pretty sure they aren't going to pull the trigger.)

2) - Zimmerman never had his gun drawn until the conflict began. In which case Martin's sole provocation for attacking Zimmerman was that he was following him. Not a legitimate reason for violence. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1 & 2. So, on the basis of your amateur forensic analysis, you are prepared to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty.

8. Why do you feel it is unfounded or paranoid? You weren't there and didn't see what he was doing.

9. You seem to be disconnected from any sense of proportion. That's why I bring up the fact that people including yourself call people names all the time. Why do you have an opinion of what Martin was doing, if you weren't there?

Are you going to convict Mr. Howell on that evidence?

He actually didn't call Martin an asshole specifically. He was referring to the thugs, bandits and burglars who were terrorizing his neighborhood. So he had an excellent reason to follow Martin and see what he was up to.

10. You are simply wrong about that. The defendant is the only witness who has the option to testify or not. The only reason for this is the 5th amendment.

Problem is, you seem to approve of the jury concluding this, because you are doing it yourself.

1 & 2. I am not prepared to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty. Please stop putting words in my mouth. As I have said throughout this thread, many questions remain unanswered. And now, Zimmerman declines to testify about what happened and why.

8. Zimmerman's remarks are clearly unfounded as he has declined to testify on his own behalf as to why he said these things; thus, Zimmerman leaves us to draw our own conclusions.

9. You state that I call people names all the time; I do not. Please stop. I have an opinion what Martin was doing because he obviously knew that Zimmerman was following him. Unless he has eyes in the back of his head, he must have seen him. To see him, he would need to turn his head. Zimmerman said Martin was looking all around. This is a common way to see if someone is following you without appearing to be checking.

I didn't say that I would convict Mr. Howell on that evidence. I said it would make Mr. Howell a person of interest (above anyone else).

Zimmerman insinuated that Martin was one of those assholes [that] always get away. You say that Zimmerman had an excellent reason to follow Martin; so what is that excellent reason? And you still haven't answered my question as to why Zimmerman insinuated that Martin was one of those assholes, even though he did not call him an "asshole" specifically — I merely adopted your own terminology when I stopped using the term "A-pejorative".

10. No, every witness has the option to testify or not, which is why we have the 5th Amendment. On the other hand, both sides have the option of calling a witness or not, which is a very common practice. Please show us where Zimmerman invoked the 5th Amendment.

Please do not attribute things to me that are not true. I never approved of any jury doing anything; I simply stated the popular view that someone who does not defend himself on the witness stand is hiding his guilt.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

1 & 2. I am not prepared to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty. Please stop putting words in my mouth. As I have said throughout this thread, many questions remain unanswered. And now, Zimmerman declines to testify about what happened and why.

8. Zimmerman's remarks are clearly unfounded as he has declined to testify on his own behalf as to why he said these things; thus, Zimmerman leaves us to draw our own conclusions.

Zimmerman told the police plenty about what he did and why, and he did it before he got lawyered up. Aside from the normal amount of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, his story has held up.

9. You state that I call people names all the time; I do not. Please stop. I have an opinion what Martin was doing because he obviously knew that Zimmerman was following him. Unless he has eyes in the back of his head, he must have seen him. To see him, he would need to turn his head. Zimmerman said Martin was looking all around. This is a common way to see if someone is following you without appearing to be checking.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Of course Martin saw Zimmerman. That's why he circled back and attacked.

I didn't say that I would convict Mr. Howell on that evidence. I said it would make Mr. Howell a person of interest (above anyone else).

Okay, so who is on trial here if not Zimmerman? Sometimes you make some really weird statements.

Zimmerman insinuated that Martin was one of those assholes [that] always get away. You say that Zimmerman had an excellent reason to follow Martin; so what is that excellent reason? And you still haven't answered my question as to why Zimmerman insinuated that Martin was one of those assholes, even though he did not call him an "asshole" specifically — I merely adopted your own terminology when I stopped using the term "A-pejorative".

The excellent reason was that there was a strange person snooping around the neighborhood, acting suspicious. There have been many break-ins lately in the neighborhood. He's walking slowly, in spite of the fact that it's raining. He's looking at the houses, as one might expect a burglar to do. He's carrying something, possibly a burglary tool. A tool was later found near the scene, but can't be tied to Martin.

10. No, every witness has the option to testify or not, which is why we have the 5th Amendment. On the other hand, both sides have the option of calling a witness or not, which is a very common practice. Please show us where Zimmerman invoked the 5th Amendment.

Wrong. Witnesses get subpoenas, and they have to show up and testify unless they are charged with something. He didn't have to "invoke" the 5th amendment because the prosecutor knew he could not call him as a witness, because of - get this - the 5th.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

9. The excellent reason was that there was a strange person snooping around the neighborhood, acting suspicious. There have been many break-ins lately in the neighborhood. He's walking slowly, in spite of the fact that it's raining. He's looking at the houses, as one might expect a burglar to do. He's carrying something, possibly a burglary tool. A tool was later found near the scene, but can't be tied to Martin.

9. Unfortunately, Zimmerman declined to explain his statements in court, under oath, and under penalty of perjury. Only Zimmerman can explain why he said what he did and what he actually experienced at the time he made those statements.

I know people who walk slowly in the rain because rushing on a wet surface increases the likelihood of slipping and falling, especially at night, and there's much less danger from getting wet than from slipping and falling.

Is everyone who looks at houses in Sanford, Florida suspected of being a burglar?

Is everyone who carries something in Sanford, Florida suspected of possessing burglarious tools?

By the way ...

This is what I meant when I said that refusing to testify is typically seen as an admission of guilt. State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312 (emphasis mine) —

Failure to reply to a direct accusation of crime, when the person charged is free to do so, is generally held to be an acquiescence in the truth of the accusation. This rule is based on the common knowledge that an innocent man will resent an accusation of crime, and will repel it as a matter of self-preservation and self-defense.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

9. Unfortunately, Zimmerman declined to explain his statements in court, under oath, and under penalty of perjury. Only Zimmerman can explain why he said what he did and what he actually experienced at the time he made those statements.

While many opinions can be spouted... This is Not Evidence of Guilt. It is only evidence that he's been told by lawyers or decided on his own to not take the stand. There may be many innocent reasons why, such as anxiety, bias of observers etc.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I know people who walk slowly in the rain because rushing on a wet surface increases the likelihood of slipping and falling, especially at night, and there's much less danger from getting wet than from slipping and falling.

Is everyone who looks at houses in Sanford, Florida suspected of being a burglar?

Is everyone who carries something in Sanford, Florida suspected of possessing burglarious tools?

By the way ...

This is what I meant when I said that refusing to testify is typically seen as an admission of guilt. State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312 (emphasis mine) —

Failure to reply to a direct accusation of crime, when the person charged is free to do so, is generally held to be an acquiescence in the truth of the accusation. This rule is based on the common knowledge that an innocent man will resent an accusation of crime, and will repel it as a matter of self-preservation and self-defense.

All of this is irrelevant. Treyvon Martin reacted to questioning/accusation violently. Your own claims here would look incriminating on Martin. It makes sense to attack and beat the head of a Witness on the ground if you're hoping to get away. See? This is speculation.
But it's not to be bothered with in any case as it is wild speculation and not fact.
Whether or not Martin was actively burglarizing is not relevant.
What IS relevant is whether or not there was Grounds for Suspicion.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

9. Unfortunately, Zimmerman declined to explain his statements in court, under oath, and under penalty of perjury. Only Zimmerman can explain why he said what he did and what he actually experienced at the time he made those statements.

There should never be any reason why the defendant would testify, if the jury does its job correctly. There are only two possibilities. (1) The evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then it doesn't matter what the defendant says. He's guilty. (2) There is a reasonable doubt about guilt. Verdict, not guilty.

I know people who walk slowly in the rain because rushing on a wet surface increases the likelihood of slipping and falling, especially at night, and there's much less danger from getting wet than from slipping and falling.

Come. On. Get serious.

Is everyone who looks at houses in Sanford, Florida suspected of being a burglar?

Do you own a home? What is your reaction when some stranger comes skulking around at night, walking in people's yards, peering at houses? I think you're going to keep an eye on them aren't you.

Is everyone who carries something in Sanford, Florida suspected of possessing burglarious tools?

By the way ...

This is what I meant when I said that refusing to testify is typically seen as an admission of guilt. State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312 (emphasis mine) —

Failure to reply to a direct accusation of crime, when the person charged is free to do so, is generally held to be an acquiescence in the truth of the accusation. This rule is based on the common knowledge that an innocent man will resent an accusation of crime, and will repel it as a matter of self-preservation and self-defense.

But he did say what he was doing to the police, without even talking to a lawyer first. Is that the action of somebody who has something to hide?

I just got back from picking up my son, Cedric, at the airport. He is an attorney. So, on the ride home, i asked his opinion about Zimmerman choosing to not take the stand.
He said that most defendants who take the stand do so against advice of counsel, and, usually get trashed by opposing counsel, and lose.

He further stated that no sane jury would convict, but doubts the sanity of the mob.

B-29 of the jury really bombed out the tears.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Zimmerman's defense team has chosen not to testify in court, so there is no story to knock holes into. The issue of his testimony and credibility of said testimony is now moot.

That's not quite true. Zimmerman's statements to the police were entered into evidence. Isn't that a story for them to knock holes into?

That is a great point, so let’s look at Zimmerman’s statements. From here on I will refer to each party as Z, M, and evidence E.
Z1. Z recounts what motivated him to found Neighborhood watch…Z see M casually walking in the rain, looking into houses. A-p1.
Z2. Z calls the non-emergency dispatcher to report a suspicious person. He watches M go to darkened area of the side walk, and then M circles Z’s truck loses sight of him. He isn’t sure of his exact location to give the dispatcher, so he steps out of his truck to look for a street sign. He lost sight of M and heads back to his vehicle. M confronts him says a few words. A-p2.
Z3. M punches Z in the face and Z fell backwards on his back. M was on top of him, Z yelled Help and M told him to “shut the fuck up.” M then grabbed his head and slammed his head on the concrete several times. Z continued to scream for help and M covered Z’s mouth and nose stopping his breathing. M reaches for Z’s exposed firearm and exclaims “Your gonna die tonight MotherFucker.” Z unholsters his firearm and fires. A-p3.
Z4. Z slid out from under M and got on top of him holding his hand away from his body. A-p4.
Z5. Z re-enacts the scene for police where he is following M from his vehicle for a few blocks. By the time Z mentioned “M circled his vehicle” M had observed Z following him from his car 4 times and noticed M’s hand in M’s waistband. B-03:53.
Z6. Z exits his truck, confirms with dispatch that he is still following M, lost sight of M and turns to return back to his truck.(B-04:44) M yells from behind Z, Z checks his pocket for is cell phone and takes his eyes off M. M then punches Z in the face (B-08:07).
Z7. Z stumbles and M then pushes him down and got on top of him. M grabs Z by the head and begins to slam it on the cement several time. (08:53) Z’s body was on the grass and his head was on the cement. Z notes he was wearing a jacket. Z yells for help twice, and M places one hand on Z’s nose and the other on Z’s mouth and tells Z to shut the fuck up.(09:23).
Z8. Z squirms to move from under M, and neighbor says he’ll call 911 amid Z pleading for help, Z’s jacket slides up (10:00) exposing his firearm inside the waistband of his right hip - Z places his right hand to his right side slightly behind him almost to rear back pants pocket (10:03). Z saw M looking at it and exclaimed “You’re gonna die tonight motherfucker.”(10:03). Z felt M’s arm going down his side, Z grab M’s hand with his elbow and side of his right arm, drew his firearm from the holster and shot M. (10:21).
Z9. M was straddling Z and raised his hands. Z doubts that he shot M, for M sat up and was talking. Z then either push/fell M off him got on M’s back (M was face down) and spread apart his arms. (10:39)

M1/E1. Rachel Jentel was talking to M on his cell phone during the series of events. M relays to her that that a creepy man is following him (M uses racial slurs to describe Z). She cautioned M to run away from the Z. Key point is that M was on the phone at the confrontation where M asks Z “Why are you following me?” She hears the headset fall and M say “Get off.” Her testimony under-cross of the defense is that Z came up behind M is solid on these points. (C) The cell phone is a Huawei U8150 smart phone (Dimensions-4.09 x 2.16 x 0.53 in) (D)
M2/E5. Z states to the dispatcher that M is running away and Z is following him.

E2. Photos taken of Z reflect a broken nose with blood dripping over his mouth. There are also wounds to the back of his head. Z wears his hair close to the scalp. (E)
E3. M DNA was not on Z’s gun nor his fingerprints. Z DNA was not found under M’s fingernails. A bit of Z’s blood was on the bottom of M’s sweatshirt under his hoodie. No blood of Z was on M’s sleeves or cuffs. (F)
E4. M had a knuckle injury along with the fatal gunshot wound. (G)
E5. Z 911 Transcript (H)

Irregular observations:
1. Z is sure how he got to ground. The written report and video report conflict.
2. Z never acknowledges that he has use of his arms during his accounts of the fight, until his jacket slides up exposing his weapon. He states that both of M’s hands are on his face. Ignoring that Z has suffered a broken nose (probably dripping blood) and trying to breathe (most likely ejecting spittle that is a mixture of saliva and blood into the both M’s hands), this was the perfect opportunity to shoot in self-defense. At this moment, only Z is aware that he has a gun.
3. Defense attorney asked R. Jeantel regarding if M was lying to her on the phone and was planning to assault Z.“Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn’t want you to know about it.” Does a person who is planning to commit an assault and battery want to time up one of his hands (fists) by holding a cell phone? Wouldn’t be optimal to have both hands free?

Logical Inference from the evidence:
1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.
2. M realized he was being followed and ran away. (E1 and E5.)
3. At some later time Z approached M from the rear. Rachel hears something that sounds like an altercation. (E1.)
4. It is unknown who committed the initial assault or battery. At this time there is no evidence that can declare this with any degree of certainty.
5. Z has a broken bloody nose and M has knuckle injuries. (E3). This is consistent with what a punch to the nose may cause.
6. How Z’s wounds to the back of the head is unknown (E3). Did slip and fall while chasing M, or did he inflict the injury himself? There is no evidence that corroborates Z’s account of M grasping his head banging it on the cement multiple times. It is an unsupported claim.
7. That M never touched Z’s firearm. (E3)
Based on the evidence listed above, Z shot and killed M because M punched him in the nose. I do not consider this justification to use deadly force.

A. Zimmerman Police statement (2/26/2012)

B. Zimmerman re-enactment (2/27/2012) Full Video

C. Witness Rachel Jeantel Rebukes Defense Attorney Theory:

D. Sides square off on getting info from Trayvon'scellphone

E. What happened the night Trayvon Martin : Photos 1-6

F. Blood work tests released in Zimmerman murder trial

G. Full Transcript Zimmerman 911 Call

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Logical Inference from the evidence:
1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.
2. M realized he was being followed and ran away. (E1 and E5.)
3. At some later time Z approached M from the rear.

Z approached from the rear? Where do you get this from?

Rachel hears something that sounds like an altercation. (E1.)
4. It is unknown who committed the initial assault or battery. At this time there is no evidence that can declare this with any degree of certainty.

Why do you keep insisting that Zimmerman has to prove this? I keep bringing up that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but it just isn't sinking in. And why do you insist on believing the most unlikely scenario?

5. Z has a broken bloody nose and M has knuckle injuries. (E3). This is consistent with what a punch to the nose may cause.
6. How Z’s wounds to the back of the head is unknown (E3). Did slip and fall while chasing M, or did he inflict the injury himself? There is no evidence that corroborates Z’s account of M grasping his head banging it on the cement multiple times. It is an unsupported claim.

See above. Z might have banged his head on the concrete later on, after a whole bunch of people were looking out their windows and calling 911. Riiight. Maybe he got hit by a meteorite. You forgot to mention that.

7. That M never touched Z’s firearm. (E3)
Based on the evidence listed above, Z shot and killed M because M punched him in the nose. I do not consider this justification to use deadly force.

The only thing I conclude from this is that you have a deep hatred for George Zimmerman, so much so that you will not extend to him the presumption of innocence that every defendant in the US has a right to.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

6. How Z’s wounds to the back of the head is unknown (E3). Did slip and fall while chasing M, or did he inflict the injury himself? There is no evidence that corroborates Z’s account of M grasping his head banging it on the cement multiple times. It is an unsupported claim.

False and misleading statement. There were witnesses, phone calls and TIME.
Time is a very important factor. Aside from Zimmerman and Martin, no witness exclusively saw everything.
However, given the witnesses and recording of supposedly Zimmerman screaming for help, given witness account seeing Martin straddling a supine Zimmerman striking him, there is a trail of evidence supporting it.
Making up speculations as you've done to shift "Guilty until proven innocent" is nonsense.
If you're going to make up so many speculations, you certainly cannot deny evidence claiming it simply does not exist just to suit your bias and prejudice.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Based on the evidence listed above, Z shot and killed M because M punched him in the nose. I do not consider this justification to use deadly force.

You mean wildly imaginative story? You invented a great deal of it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.

Oh, and you forgot the cracker part. Creepy ass cracker.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.

Oh, and you forgot the cracker part. Creepy ass cracker.

Elucidate. Is that something Martin is quoted as having said?
Or was that humor on your part?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.

Oh, and you forgot the cracker part. Creepy ass cracker.

Elucidate. Is that something Martin is quoted as having said?
Or was that humor on your part?

No, according to Rachel, that's what Trayvon called Zimmerman. It's really the only racist remark in the whole story, unless one thinks "f'n aholes" refers exclusively to blacks. It helps us to understand why Trayvon might have circled back to beat on Z. Racial animus.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/creep...riend-19506887

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, according to Rachel, that's what Trayvon called Zimmerman.

I never knew about that.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's really the only racist remark in the whole story, unless one thinks "f'n aholes" refers exclusively to blacks.

Reasonable evidence would need to be provided showing that a general slur somehow is a racial slur in this case.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It helps us to understand why Trayvon might have circled back to beat on Z. Racial animus.

Possibly.
But that is speculation.
I think that if Martin felt that Zimmerman was out to get him, he should have gone home or called the cops, instead of calling his girlfriend.
He opted to engage/assault and ended up shot. While that is tragic, he played that role in his own death.
The speculation would be:
-He felt threatened by being followed and reacted violently: Plausible. But this begs the question about whether Zimmerman was identified as Neighborhood watch and how he confronted Martin- Was Martin in fear of his life? Or was Martin aggressively confronting someone who he didn't like the tone of his voice or questioning as to his presence?
-He was racially motivated to attack what he perceived was a white man (Who was also, actually Hispanic.): Possible but doesn't seem too likely, to me. Unless a history of hate crimes and racial prejudice against whites can be established- the utterance of a common racial slur is not grounds to presume that much guilt.
-He was, in fact, plotting crime and needed to remove a witness: Possible but requires evidence that he was scouting out crime and his snacks from the convenience store are compelling that his trip for snacks was accurate, even if it is possible that wasn't ALL he was doing. Martin may have been kind of bored and curious and was poking around as teens will do. That would certainly make him look suspicious. Without evidence of wrong doing, I consider it not worth consideration to speculate that Martin was scouting out crime.

The likeliest scenario still has Martin playing an active part in his own demise. His established violent character caught up to him when he squared off with an armed, even if weaker, opponent.
I'm under the impression that neither man was an Angel or Saint.
Just a bad mix that statistically, was bound to happen eventually.

Cedric has apparently been following this trial on tv and the news. He said that the media(he likes to listen to the liberal media) had already tried and convicted Zimmerman. This seemed somehow, a surprise to him, and he spoke out against it. I suggested that perhaps the people speaking had anti gun, anti vigilante biases, and this was perhaps reflected in their comments? Or is that stance most likely racist in and of itself?

I believe that entire thing is a racially driven sham.
Playing the race card was successful in the O.J. Simpson trial. By appealing to strong emotions on the subject, prosecutors can drum up support.
You have anger and resentment over racism from those that have suffered from it.
You have people of one race feeling compelled to account for the guilt of their race oppressing another in the past.
You have a fear of Setting a Precedent one way or the other- It's not Justice- it is Politics.

Politics demands that Zimmerman be found guilty and receive the maximum sentence. This precedent that White men cannot shoot black men for racially profiling them is politically preferred to the riots and anger that would result from an acquittal. The jurors will fear backlash, hate mail and threats, as well.

What will actually happen is anyones guess. But the odds are not good for Zimmerman- it's a Kangaroo court and a Show.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

. By appealing to strong emotions on the subject, _________can drum up support.
...
it's _____________ a Show.

Kinda sums up my distrust of the AGW aficionados, who seem to think that emotionally charged words, and hyperbole is ok for science.

I distrust any who in a rational discussion rely on such tactics.

.....................
oops, off target?
When do you expect a verdict?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Kinda sums up my distrust of the AGW aficionados,

Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Originally Posted by sculptor

oops, off target?

If my question above is correct, it clarifies what I've suspected. But wasn't sure about. So it's on topic as far as I am concerned for that reason, alone. I'm sure others will disagree...:P

Originally Posted by sculptor

When do you expect a verdict?

I am not a lawyer. I have no idea. I just think that what I said in the post above is just a little too accurate for comfort or confidence in the legal system.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sculptor

Kinda sums up my distrust of the AGW aficionados,

Anthropogenic Global Warming?... .

yes
I think that there is a place for emotionally charged words and hyperbole-------maybe the theatre?
certainly not in the courts nor in science.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I think that there is a place for emotionally charged words and hyperbole-------maybe the theatre?
certainly not in the courts nor in science.

Yeah, but now it is off topic and frankly, I think Lynx_Fox and Adelady have done a better job debating that with you than I would.
In this case, science and courts are using them for this topic, most certainly.

and inappropriately?

Of course. See all the posts I've made? There's content in them.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Logical Inference from the evidence:
1. Z identified M as suspicious. M identified Z as creepy.
2. M realized he was being followed and ran away. (E1 and E5.)
3. At some later time Z approached M from the rear.

Z approached from the rear? Where do you get this from?

Her court room testimony on defense cross, as referenced.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Rachel hears something that sounds like an altercation. (E1.)
4. It is unknown who committed the initial assault or battery. At this time there is no evidence that can declare this with any degree of certainty.

Why do you keep insisting that Zimmerman has to prove this? I keep bringing up that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but it just isn't sinking in. And why do you insist on believing the most unlikely scenario?

I didn't. It is just a known fact. No one knows who assaulted or battered first. You are inferring that I want Zimmerman to prove this, or to know who landed the first blow. I don't. Does the law require this, given the charges?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

5. Z has a broken bloody nose and M has knuckle injuries. (E3). This is consistent with what a punch to the nose may cause.
6. How Z’s wounds to the back of the head is unknown (E3). Did slip and fall while chasing M, or did he inflict the injury himself? There is no evidence that corroborates Z’s account of M grasping his head banging it on the cement multiple times. It is an unsupported claim.

See above. Z might have banged his head on the concrete later on, after a whole bunch of people were looking out their windows and calling 911. Riiight. Maybe he got hit by a meteorite. You forgot to mention that.

So you have no knowledge either or have any evidence that corroborates his claim? The wounds are real, but no evidence corroborates that Martin caused them.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

7. That M never touched Z’s firearm. (E3)
Based on the evidence listed above, Z shot and killed M because M punched him in the nose. I do not consider this justification to use deadly force.

The only thing I conclude from this is that you have a deep hatred for George Zimmerman, so much so that you will not extend to him the presumption of innocence that every defendant in the US has a right to.

That's a reach. I actually feel sorry for Zimmerman. I suspect his past experiences with criminals biased his judgement in this event. You started this thread to review the forensic evidence and challenged me to review his reported statements. I have done what you've asked. You have cited no evidence to counter what I've posted, and accuse me of an emotion I do not have. The best evidence available shows Zimmerman killed Martin with his gun and his explanation of self-defense is unsatisfactory.

You are a moderator on this forum. You should stick exactly what you requested in your OP, and away from trying guess at my emotional state.