George Zimmerman Trial Date Set for June 10, 2013 (March, bias, thought)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves suggesting that Trayvon was not beating Zimmerman."
"Marilyn, who comments at my law blog, suggested Zimmerman was restraining Martin by gripping his clothing with one hand and fired the gun with the other as Martin was attempting to get away. This could explain how the upper part of both items of clothing could have been pulled down as well as a few inches away from Martin’s chest when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. It also might explain how Zimmerman’s blood might have gotten on the shirt, but not the hoodie."
Again, people can draw their own conclusions, and even experts in their field often disagree. Remember the car trunk in the Casey Anthony case and the different reports about decomposition?
Excellent link, justNancy! The straight front-to-back bullet trajectory is questionable; reason dictates that the trajectory would likely have been diagonal if Martin was straddling Zimmerman. Perhaps the analysis of his clothing will explain that condition, but it seems more consistent with two people who were standing a moderate distance apart as the ME's report indicates.
Thanks! The blog is written by a former law professor and criminal defense attorney. I also found the comments to be very interesting. He mentions that, without seeing the stains, you cannot tell how they got there, and only a qualified blood splatter expert can determine this. So we can argue until next June all we want, but nobody knows exactly how the DNA evidence was transferred to Zimmerman's shirt.
What I also find interesting is that this well informed attorney agrees that prosecutors sometimes lie and hide evidence to win a case, but he believes it's unnecessary because of the overwhelming evidence proving Zimmerman is guilty.
"I cannot agree with your statement because I have seen and read about many prosecutors who have concealed material exculpatory evidence from the defense and, in some cases, even suborned perjury to get a conviction."
"We do not need to make stuff up because the evidence in this case is overwhelming. George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense and he has lied repeatedly while claiming that he did."
The moral of the story seems to be in you're a black male don't wear hoodies at night in the rain as you walk from the store.
The lack of respect here amazes me. What is the point of calling Trayvon names or mocking him? I guess this is a forum full of perfect people who never got in trouble in school or tried drugs/alchohol as kids.
I skipped Spanish class in 9th grade to make out with my boyfriend...its a good thing I wasn't raped the next day or people would have said "well you know she was suspended for kissing a boy just yesterday"
He wasn't smoking weed when this occurred. He wasn't taking "gangster photos" when this occurred so why is that even important?
You know why......the vile racists will stop at nothing to justify murder.
The relevancy would be that Zimmerman SAID that Martin grabbed for the gun and they struggled for the gun and that's the issue. Why wasn't there any DNA from Martin on the gun???
Nothing to do with blood and guts.
I recall gz stating that tm Reached for the gun, not that he ever, ever touched the gun. There was no reason to expect tm's dna to be on the gun.
"No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves suggesting that Trayvon was not beating Zimmerman."
"Marilyn, who comments at my law blog, suggested Zimmerman was restraining Martin by gripping his clothing with one hand and fired the gun with the other as Martin was attempting to get away. This could explain how the upper part of both items of clothing could have been pulled down as well as a few inches away from Martin’s chest when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. It also might explain how Zimmerman’s blood might have gotten on the shirt, but not the hoodie."
Again, people can draw their own conclusions, and even experts in their field often disagree. Remember the car trunk in the Casey Anthony case and the different reports about decomposition?
Leatherman That guy had gz guilty of murder 1 Before he was arrested --- "Therefore, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense should be rejected and he should be charged with intentional murder."
The clown who wrote --- "In addition, EMS documents obtained by the New York Daily News do not support Zimmerman’s claim that he sustained physical injuries during his confrontation with Trayvon Martin."
I'm fine with using biased, one-sided sources of opinion, but I did want anyone unfamiliar with Leatherman's blog to know where he's coming from.
The relevancy would be that Zimmerman SAID that Martin grabbed for the gun and they struggled for the gun and that's the issue. Why wasn't there any DNA from Martin on the gun???
Nothing to do with blood and guts.
there's a difference between going for his gun and grabbing his gun. either way, Trayvon has to be bleeding to leave DNA evidence on a weapon. since he was the one doing the beating, he will eave very few DNA until his bullet wound is inflicted.
there's a difference between going for his gun and grabbing his gun. either way, Trayvon has to be bleeding to leave DNA evidence on a weapon. since he was the one doing the beating, he will eave very few DNA until his bullet wound is inflicted.
go read zimmerman's statement again.
No, blood is not the only source of DNA evidence. I'd suggest that you do a little reading about sources of DNA.
As I said to another poster, what happened between Martin and Zimmerman regarding the gun, whether there was a struggle, whether Trayvon reached for the gun, whether or not Zimmerman has ever claimed in any of the many statements he has made that Martin grabbed the gun, will be a question of fact which will be decided by the jury if the issue is part of the State's case. This could also go to Zimmerman's credibility.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 12-08-2012 at 12:20 PM..
You realize you contradict yourself. First you say 'the law clearly states that an aggressor cannot then become the victim.' Then you name conditions when the aggressor Can become the victim and use self defense. That's what I said.
First of all, self-defense cases are never black and white, so that needs to be said at the outset. There are shades of grey that people arguing on both sides need to consider, so I would acknowledge that much.
But there's no contradiction in what I said at all. The way that justified use of deadly force typically works is that a person has a duty to establish that he was confronted with an emergency that was unavoidable. The difference between the Florida and SYG states and other jurisdictions is that in Florida, there is no duty to escape from the emergency - the emergency itself (if it can be demonstrated) is enough to show cause for using deadly force. If Trayvon Martin had been the one to approach Zimmerman at the pool house, for instance, this is an entirely different case we're talking about here, because Zimmerman would have no duty to retreat. As it turns out, though, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and we know by Zimmerman's own voice on the recordings that he was in an agitated state of mind, so it is almost certain that he initiated the verbal confrontation. In short, Zimmerman created the emergency himself by virtue of his own decisions to confront Martin - with a loaded weapon no less. There was no apparent basis for the confrontation, either, as Martin was not known to be breaking any laws at the time of the incident. Thus, because Zimmerman's conduct, and a series of bad decisions on his part, increased the likelihood of an altercation, he did have a duty to act with reasonable care in that situation.
Having said all of that, a judge and jury would likely agree that Martin also had some responsibilities in this situation. Zimmerman may have created the confrontation, but that didn't grant Martin free reign to behave in any manner he so desired. Even if Zimmerman had initiated the verbal or even the physical confrontation, self-defense typically requires that a person can only use the force that is needed to deal with the situation. Martin may or may not have been within his rights to use physical force against someone he considered an unknown assailant, but even the victim has a duty to stop once the threat has been dealt with. The jury could look at Zimmerman's pictures and conclude: "I get why Martin attacked Zimmerman, but Martin didn't need to batter him into a pulp," then it's possible that Zimmerman could legitimately claim self-defense.
The short of it is, it's a complicated case. I personally think and will always think that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because it was a series of bad decisions on his part that led to this whole thing. If he had just left his gun in his car, this would have been nothing more than an assault-battery case, and it would probably be Trayvon Martin sitting in jail and Zimmerman collecting a settlement instead of Zimmerman facing a 20-year prison term. I suspect, though, that Zimmerman had it in his mind all along that he could confront random passers by like Martin (or anyone else for that matter) and then seek refuge under the SYG law. I suspect that the prosecution is carefully scouring his blogs or forum visits for any signs of postings or other evidence that would perhaps reveal Zimmerman's interpretation of his responsibilities under the SYG law as it relates to a case such as this one.
Quote:
I don't know where you come up with the claim that gz impeded or blocked tm's path home. Thin air ?
I'm not going to post the link, but I've seen it posted on the internet on numerous sites (some credible, some less so). The pool house vantage point where Zimmerman was positioned sits so that it has a view of people entering the complex. Martin's intended destination is to the left of the pool house (as one enters the community) and it is then behind the pool house by a distance of about a good 1 1/2 or 2 blocks. Zimmerman spotted Martin as he made a left turn along a sidewalk path, at which point he was walking away from the pool house. Martin then was going to make a right turn up the street so that he could go toward his temporary residence. It was not long after Martin made his turn away from the pool house that he noticed Zimmerman following him (corroborated by his girlfriend's testimony and also by Zimmerman himself on the 911 call). Martin then took off running in a panic and then ended up between two rows of homes, indicating that he became disoriented (understandable if he was not a regular resident there). Zimmerman then went up the street and intercepted Martin as he began walking in the direction toward his intended destination. One of saddest parts of this is, if Martin's temporary residence had been closer to the gate or the pool house, this would never have happened, as Martin would have just knocked on the door and gone in and Zimmerman would have been confronted by an angry father. Instead, Martin was chased for a block in the dark and in a neighborhood he probably didn't know well and Zimmerman stood between him and the place he wanted to go. Zimmerman's conduct makes it plausible to assume that Zimmerman impeded the path of Martin.
Quote:
Even accepting everything you say is 'fact,' which it's not, it still leaves whether someone is obligated to keep a 'cool head' after being knocked to the ground with the assailant on top of you [which you probably don't believe happened].
The problem here is that Martin isn't the one who used deadly force; Zimmerman is the one who introduced deadly force as a possible end result. Zimmerman has a legal right to carry a firearm, and he has a legal right to, within reason, monitor traffic in his neighborhood. However, possessing lethal force requires that one act with extreme care, and generally speaking, introducing lethal force into any situation is only justified when the person finds himself in an emergency that was largely unavoidable. There are so many steps along the way that, if they had been changed, if Zimmerman had made different decisions, could have reduced or even eliminated the possibility of this outcome. That's the rub, and that's what jurors are going to have to consider.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That guy had gz guilty of murder 1 Before he was arrested --- "Therefore, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense should be rejected and he should be charged with intentional murder." 
