Florida v. Zimmerman

Parent Cafe
1721

<p>Quote:
Why would Zimmerman have grabbed Martin?
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>Sorry, that makes no sense to me. And in this scenario, he was going to hold Martin while he was calling the police? And how long was he supposed to hold him for before the police arrived.</p>

<p>I’m not buying what you are trying to sell. You’ve prejudged the case and don’t care a hoot about evidence.</p>

1722

<p>

Yes, but GZ’s defense comes in the form of a narrative, and some of that narrative does not seem plausible.</p>

<p>That is: it does not seem plausible that after exiting his vehicle and admitting to a police officer that he was following Martin, that GZ stopped following Martin and instead walked over to a house bordering the street a block away from where his car was parked in order to get a “house number”. </p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that Martin punched GZ in the face with no provocation or warning, when the neighbors all heard a heated argument or shouting between the two men. </p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that Martin accosted and punched GZ at the “T”, knocking him to the ground, when Martin’s body was found prone on the ground 40 feet to the south. </p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that GZ could have managed to unholster his weapon from behind his hip, aim and shoot TM in the chest, while TM was sitting on him, simultaneously pounding his head on the pavement and smothering him. </p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that GZ could have been repeatedly struck with his head pounded into the pavement, and have only superficial cuts to the back of his head and an injury to his face more consistent with a single blow. </p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that TM could have been sitting on top of GZ, pounding and punching him, while GZ was bleeding profusely from his nose, and yet not have any of GZ’s blood or DNA on his hands or clothing.</p>

<p>It does not seem plausible that after GZ shot TM with a wound that caused near instant death, that TM would have sat up and said “you got me”. </p>

<p>The instructions you received as a juror were not to accept any “plausible” explanation, but only any “reasonably” plausible explanation. </p>

<p>It seems to me that the most plausible explanation is that GZ shot TM in anger or in the heat of the moment, realized that he had over-reacted to the situation, and then shaded the truth to make out a claim of self defense. </p>

<p>I don’t expect to see a 2nd degree murder conviction. I do think that there is a very strong possibility of acquittal, but also a very strong possibility of a manslaughter conviction. If you believe that the evidence points to a heat-of-the-moment, but legally unjustifiable shooting – that’s what you get.</p>

1723

<p>“And in this scenario, he was going to hold Martin while he was calling the police? And how long was he supposed to hold him for before the police arrived.”</p>

<p>He just hung up with the police. He knew the police was coming with in a minute or two, and they actually did. I think you are not in full command or awareness of the evidence.</p>

1724

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not what he’s charged with. “Premeditated” equates to first degree murder. 2nd degree is pretty much what you get if GZ followed Martin with the intent to stop him from getting away because Martin fell into a class of people he didn’t like (“f’ing punks” who “always get away”) – and then shot him unnecessarily with that mind set.</p>

1725

<p>He knew the police were coming in minutes? Why is that, because the police ALWAYS arrive in minutes?</p>

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/average-police-response-time.html]Average-Police-Response-Time[/url”&gt;Average-Police-Response-Time]Average-Police-Response-Time[/url</a>]</p>

<p>“According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.”</p>

<p>“The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour.”</p>

1726

<p>He called the police many dozen of times before, I would assume he knew approximately what response time was going to be. They already told him the police was on the way. And he was already on the phone with Sanford police for a long time before he left his car.</p>

1727

<p>

</p>

<p>Did your roommie also put his hand over your mouth and nose, press down, and try to smother you. </p>

<p>(If I was ever attacked and someone did that to me, I think there would be bite marks on the assailant’s hands. I imagine that would also cause a transfer of DNA)</p>

1728

<p>Quote:
“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.
That’s not what he’s charged with. “Premeditated” equates to first degree murder. 2nd degree is pretty much what you get if GZ followed Martin with the intent to stop him from getting away because Martin fell into a class of people he didn’t like (“f’ing punks” who “always get away”) – and then shot him unnecessarily with that mind set.”</p>

<p>Calmom, you’re a lawyer and I’m not. And you’ve closely followed the case and I haven’t. Congrats. Can you please explain what Zimmerman is being charged with from a legal standpoint without the editorial comments?</p>

1729

<p>riprorin, – the man had a loaded gun. I’m quite sure that it occurred to him that he could hold the “punk” at gunpoint if necessary. </p>

<p>Why else would he follow a “punk” who “always gets away” if he wasn’t hoping to catch the guy?</p>

1730

<p>I’m not invested enough to argue the plausibilty. Calmom could be right. But I swear I heard there was some gz dna on tm inner shirt.</p>

1731

<p>To riprorin: </p>

<p>He is being charged with "The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, "</p>

1732

<p>Calmom, can you please stop the inflammatory language so we can have a rational discussion?</p>

<p>Zimmerman thinks he can grab and hold a younger, taller, and probably stronger Martin to whenever the police arrive because he has a holstered gun?</p>

<p>That doesn’t seem logical to me.</p>

1733

<p>To riprorin: </p>

<p>He is being charged with "The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, "</p>

<p>Thanks, Calmom. Wow, what a reach. Why not just charge him with manslaughter or negligent homicide or something like that?</p>

1734

<p>"But I swear I heard there was some gz dna on tm inner shirt. "</p>

<p>The testimony by the expert said there was not.</p>

1735

<p>

I’ll just say this last thing. Every explanation will have an element of implausibility.<br>
But that’s beside the point. The prosecution hasn’t propounded this theory so I wouldn’t compare it to GZ’s account. I assume they will propound some theory, and assuming I get a chance to hear it, I’ll decide which explanation is more or less implausible.</p>

1736

<p>Quote:
“It seems to me that the most plausible explanation is that GZ shot TM in anger or in the heat of the moment, realized that he had over-reacted to the situation, and then shaded the truth to make out a claim of self defense.”</p>

<p>Zimmerman shot Martin at point blank range. That seems more consistent with Martin being on top of him like Zimmerman said than your scenario.</p>

1737

<p>

</p>

<p>[Zimmerman’s</a> DNA found on gun, not Martin’s, expert testifies | CTV News](<a href=“http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/zimmerman-s-dna-found-on-gun-not-martin-s-expert-testifies-1.1352043]Zimmerman’s”>Zimmerman's DNA found on gun, not Martin's, expert testifies | CTV News)</p>

<p>

Not true?</p>

1738

<p>Sorry, you are right bovertine, Zimmerman DNA was found on the sweatshirt of TM. My apology.</p>

1739

<p>No prob. It doesn’t seem like it was much. Just happened to be one of the few parts of testimony I actually eatched and wondered if my ears were playing tricks on me.</p>

1740

<p>Florida DNA expert Anthony Gorgone testified that Zimmerman’s DNA WAS found among blood on a shirt Martin was wearing under his hoodie. </p>

<p>Martin’s DNA was NOT found on the grip of Zimmerman’s gun.</p>

<p>Zimmerman’s DNA was NOT found under Martin’s fingernails.</p>

<p>Law Enforcement analyst Amy Siewert tetified that tearing and residue on Martin’s clothing showed the gun was directly against the clothing when it fired. Mr. O’Mara made a point, during cross examination, that the gun was touching the clothing but not pushed so far against it that the clothing in any way wrapped around the gun. The gun was not denting the loose shirt, it was touching the shirt. (Hope that make sense.) Not sure why that was important.</p>

<p>cross posted with bovertine</p>