<p>riprorin, I agree…I am SURE GZ does not believe he committed a criminal act. To him TM was just another “f-ing punk” and now he’s gone. GZ’s lack of remorse further reinforces the idea that he did “the right thing.”</p>
<p>
Okay, I guess I’m confused here. There isn’t a dispute as to the fact that TM and GZ were fighting, is there? I know there are disputes as to who started it, who threw the first punch, who was on top, who was screaming, etc. But they were fighting right? So are you saying TM didn’t punch at all? That’s not much of a fight. That GZ got the broken nose by slipping or something? He did have a broken nose, didn’t he? I mean, something on him was bleeding all over his shirt. Just curious as to what you mean by this, and what sort of analysis you’ve done in your mind about the path of DNA in a fight.</p>
<p>Sally, that’s your opinion because you’ve clearly prejudged the case. You can’t except that he may not have commited a criminal act.</p>
<p>It’s clearly not a cut and dry case as much as you would like it to be.</p>
<p>For me, I think the case is going to come down to how well the lawyers put together the scenarios in the closing arguments, and most importantly the judge’s description of the law of self defense. Because I don’t have the tenacity to follow every morsel of evidence and put together a case like many on here apparently have.</p>
<p>Seriously, a lot of the evidence I’ve heard could swing either way or isn’t particularly relevant. That’s why I’m interested in the arguments and law. Sure, Zimmerman could have made up the whole thing, except people did see some sort of an altercation. How should I evaluate that. Sure, he was following TM. What does that mean in the law? </p>
<p>Yeah, Zimmerman is an a$$hole, but is that really relevant? </p>
<p>I don’t see the scientific evidence as dispositive of anything. But the defense spent a significant amount of time attempting to discredit it, so are they concerned about something?</p>
<p>If Zimmerman was following Martin it was stupid, but was it criminal? If someone is following you, does that give you the right to assault them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I’ve posted above, it’s possible that the fight started with GZ grabbing TM, possibly trying to use some sort of wrestling hold, with TM resisting and banging GZ’s nose with his head. That isn’t provable, but as I noted, my personal experience with thrashing toddlers has been that head bumps hurt like the devil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The person being followed has a right to self defense if they perceive themselves as threatened, and if there is a fight that results, the person who was doing the following ordinarily would NOT be able to claim “self-defense.” </p>
<p>And there is no evidence whatsoever other than GZ’s self-serving statement to indicate that TM initiated an assault on GZ. TM could have been responding to GZ’s physical actions toward him, such as grabbing his his shirt and trying to prevent him from running away.</p>
<p>Why would Zimmerman have grabbed Martin?</p>
<p>It seems more likely Martin was angry that he felt Zimmerman was harrasing him and he assaulted him.</p>
<p>Martin was shot at point blank range, consistent with Zimmerman’s account.</p>
<p>bovertine, GZ has stated that TM punched him in the face numerous times and pounded his head into the pavement until he thought his head would “explode.” He stated that TM held his hand over his face and mouth, smothering him. I’m sure riprorin could give you a more exhaustive catalog of GZ’s claims.</p>
<p>If those things had happened I would expect that a plethora of GZ’s DNA would be found on TM’s hands - front and back, and under his fingernails. In particular, the smothering part is hard to picture happening without an exchange of DNA. If GZ’s nose was broken at the outset, as he states, I’d expect some transfer of blood and DNA to the front of TM’s clothes, wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>On the other hand, if there was more of a pushing and shoving going on or a single punch thrown; maybe some rolling around on the grass wrestling to get the upper hand, you might not find any DNA. GZ’s nose and head cuts could have happening in that scenario, or simply by him running into a tree, as others have suggested. I just don’t find that the story as told by GZ squares with none of his blood on TM’s clothes and none of his DNA on TM’s hands.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the evidence that was put forth, that may be true-- but I think the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the physical evidence cannot be taken to confirm GZ’s story. So it just comes down to his word. (And I do think that Kluge has some good points about what you might expect)</p>
<p>I would have liked to see some ballistics /angle of entry testimony as to the path of the bullet through Trayvon’s heart, because it doesn’t seem consistent to me with GZ’s account of events at the time of shooting – but maybe that sort of testimony would have been equally inconclusive.</p>
<p>riprorin, I am not going to get into it with you but you have blithely ignored every bit of evidence that leans toward the prosecution–you have “prejudged” the case as much as anyone here, with the absolute conviction that GZ does not deserve to be convicted. Of course, that is your right as a bystander and not a juror. </p>
<p>As to your question in #1705, if someone feels threatened by someone following him, I believe he is entitled to “stand his ground” and defend himself. I am not an attorney but this sounds as though it fits the case. The question is whether GZ showed “force” (i.e., the handgun). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine”>Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine;
<p>kluge, I’ve only peripherally followed this case and have watched none of the trial. I’m just trying to apply some common sense.</p>
<p>
Okay, I haven’t hear anybody propose this in court, but maybe. They should have checked his head for DNA then I suppose. </p>
<p>
True, that’s unfortunately all we have. At least until the arguments from the actual lawyers in the case, and their use of the evidence. That’s why I’m waiting for that. And the defense case of course.</p>
<p>Every time I have been on jury duty they have told me that if there are two equally plausible explanations for something I am to accept the explanation that points to innocence. Not sure if that applies here, but if it does, until the prosecution explains why one theory, even if produced by GZ, is not equally plausible to the “head bump” theory, I think I have to go with that. Of course, where GZ got his broken nose is obviously just one part of this whole thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because he thought Martin was a “punk” who “always got away” and he wanted to hold Martin until the police showed up.</p>
<p>It’s hard for me to see why Zimmerman would NOT have tried to question or detain Martin. He called in a report, he exited his vehicle to follow Martin – and then when he comes face to face, he says, “no problem”?</p>
<p>I think it’s very possible that some of the dialogue GZ reports is not what Martin said to him, but what he said to Martin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm…because he was already following him? Because he was sick of the break-ins and the “a**holes” who always get away, and didn’t want this one to escape? Because he was an angry wannabe cop who flunked out of his CC criminal justice program? Because he had a history of violence and came from a patently racist family?</p>
<p>(cross-posted with calmom)</p>
<p>My take on this is if that if Zimmerman had stayed in the car and paid attention to the 911 responders, he would not have felt threatened or needed to “stand his ground”. Admittedly I am not there and part of the jury and only responding to the news coverage on TV and in the NY Times, but it seems to me that the only thing suspicious about Trayvon Martin seems to be the crime of “walking while black”. I don’t get why that was considered suspicious enough to follow him in the first place.</p>
<p>"I would have liked to see some ballistics /angle of entry testimony as to the path of the bullet through Trayvon’s heart, because it doesn’t seem consistent to me with GZ’s account of events at the time of shooting – but maybe that sort of testimony would have been equally inconclusive. "</p>
<p>I just saw the replay of the testimony of a ballistic expert that said the shot was a direct and contact shot which I believe means that the gun was pressed against the clothing as the shot was fired. This came from the analysis of the clothing where the entry point was, and this conclusion is different from the autopsy report (intermediate range) which used the flesh wound to determine the distance of the gun shot.</p>
<p>I think Captain Carter’s testimony will help the prosecution a lot. He testified that Zimmerman was an A student in his class and that stand your ground was discussed in detail. Compare that to what Zimmerman told Sean Hannity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Exclusive:</a> George Zimmerman breaks silence on ‘Hannity’ - Articles - The Sean Hannity Show](<a href=“Sean Hannity”>Sean Hannity)</p>
<p>If he lied to Hannity, then the prosecution will argue he lied to the police.</p>
<p>
In my younger and stupider days, I was coldcocked by my roommate in a drunken brawl. I fell back immediately, like a flash, and he was on top of me. I don’t think any of my DNA was in a position to violate the laws of gravity and transfer to him.</p>
<p>But like I said, I’ll wait for actual explanations from both sides. In wet grass, with people sliding around and body parts moving in various directions, and wiping against various things, I don’t think it’s entirely predictable where nay DNA will land. And I thought they did find some of Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin’s clothes, just not very much.</p>
<p>Sally said: “riprorin, I am not going to get into it with you but you have blithely ignored every bit of evidence that leans toward the prosecution–you have “prejudged” the case as much as anyone here, with the absolute conviction that GZ does not deserve to be convicted. Of course, that is your right as a bystander and not a juror.”</p>
<p>Sally, here’s a post I wrote quite a bit back (#1389). I guess you missed it.</p>
<p>I don’t have any skin in the game here. It’s a tragedy involving two individuals who don’t appear to be very clever.</p>
<p>If it can be proved that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and shot him im cold blood in a premediated manner, he should be convicted of murder.</p>
<p>If Zimmerman started a physical altercation that got out of hand, he should be convicted of manslaughter.</p>
<p>If Martin doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman, Zimmerman should be acquitted.</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer and haven’t followed the case very closely, but that’s what my common sense tells me.</p>