The shirt being "loose" when the shot is fired is consistent with Martin being on top, bending over Zimmerman. If Martin was on the bottom, or even standing up, the shirt would most likely have been in contact with his skin and the entry pattern would have been different.Tero wrote:So far the forensics show that Ms shirt or hoodie ? was not flat against his chest but more loose as the bullet entered. You may hear more.
All I have is this analysis
http://youtu.be/ebEY9OU22wY
I'm not following tv coverage as the racist angle is of no interest to me.
State v Zimmerman
Re: State v Zimmerman
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
I can also say that the conduct of the prosecutors in this case appears to have been questionable.
- Robert_S
- Cookie Monster
- Posts: 13416
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
- Location: Illinois
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
Some people of certain age ans skin color don't usually call the police because they don't really expect protection, justice or fairness. If someone's following you and you don't have an intimidation factor, hitting first might seem like the prudent thing to do. Following someone at night does seem sorta hostile and threatening doesn't it?Seth wrote:Yes, a terrible nightmare caused by Martin, who didn't do the reasonable and prudent thing, which would have been to call 911, not his girlfriend, and report that he was being followed while at the same time seeking to BREAK CONTACT and find a place of safety, like the house he was staying at, while waiting for the police to sort things out...being that he was both unarmed and in an unfamiliar neighborhood where he was a guest.Sean Hayden wrote:And you think that helps his case?
Sounds like a terrible nightmare for Martin. One that ended in him being shot to death.
What had Zimmerman seen Martin do prior to calling 911?
If Martin had called 911 they would BOTH have been on with a dispatcher and hopefully the dispatchers would have calmed the situation till the police arrived by telling Martin to avoid circling back to confront Zimmerman, just as they told Zimmerman to stop his pursuit...which he did.
Martin is at fault for initiating the fatal confrontation by seeking out Zimmerman.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
Once again, Martin ran away while Zimmerman was still in the truck. You hear on the 911 tape that Zimmerman sees Martin start to run, and Z then exits his vehicle. Z seems to be running and the dispatcher hears that and tells him they don't need him to do that. He says o.k. and sounds like he stops. He tells the dispatcher Martin is now out of sight and Z walks around talking with the dispatcher for about a minute and 20 seconds. Then the call ends, then later -- long after the call ends and longer after Martin had run off -- then they reencounter each other.Robert_S wrote:Some people of certain age ans skin color don't usually call the police because they don't really expect protection, justice or fairness. If someone's following you and you don't have an intimidation factor, hitting first might seem like the prudent thing to do. Following someone at night does seem sorta hostile and threatening doesn't it?Seth wrote:Yes, a terrible nightmare caused by Martin, who didn't do the reasonable and prudent thing, which would have been to call 911, not his girlfriend, and report that he was being followed while at the same time seeking to BREAK CONTACT and find a place of safety, like the house he was staying at, while waiting for the police to sort things out...being that he was both unarmed and in an unfamiliar neighborhood where he was a guest.Sean Hayden wrote:And you think that helps his case?
Sounds like a terrible nightmare for Martin. One that ended in him being shot to death.
What had Zimmerman seen Martin do prior to calling 911?
If Martin had called 911 they would BOTH have been on with a dispatcher and hopefully the dispatchers would have calmed the situation till the police arrived by telling Martin to avoid circling back to confront Zimmerman, just as they told Zimmerman to stop his pursuit...which he did.
Martin is at fault for initiating the fatal confrontation by seeking out Zimmerman.
This whole concept of portraying this as M walking along and Z creepily following him is made up. That is not what the evidence indicates.
And, if hitting first is the prudent thing to do, then you are giving Martin MORE legal rights than is currently afforded people in Stand Your Ground states like Florida. The law requires, for Martin to use force, that he be threatened with force. He can't initiate force because he thinks someone might be following him. Once he is put in a situation where he has a right of self defense, then Stand Your Ground allows him to fight back without running away. However, if Martin has not been put in the position of being attacked, he can't "strike first." If he does "strike first" then that makes Zimmerman's case.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
He looks Mexican.Tero wrote:Plus, Z looked like a creepy cracker!
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51321
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
TM was on top. All they need to prove is
1 gun was hidden
2 TM attacked first
Boils down to stand your ground now includes lay on your ground.
I don't think there is anything interesting to drag it to a month or half a year.
1 gun was hidden
2 TM attacked first
Boils down to stand your ground now includes lay on your ground.
I don't think there is anything interesting to drag it to a month or half a year.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... l-gunshot/(CBS) A former neighbor of George Zimmerman testified he saw two men in a "tussle" outside his home the night of Feb. 26, 2012, and said he now believes the person on top in the altercation - which would moments later turn fatal - was Trayvon Martin.
In key testimony, he also said he believes George Zimmerman was the person yelling for help.
PICTURES: George Zimmerman on trial in death of Fla. teen
VIDEO: Zimmerman trial: Prosecutor opens with profanity
John Good took the stand Friday in the fifth day of testimony in the Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial. The former neighborhood watch captain is charged with shooting the unarmed teen as he was walking back to his father's fiancee's home through a Sanford, Fla. gated community.
John Good testified he saw a man in dark clothing on top of a man who was wearing red or light-colored clothing with lighter skin. Zimmerman, 29, was wearing a red jacket the night of the altercation, and Martin was wearing a dark hoodie. However, Good testified that he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk, as Zimmerman claims Martin did before he fatally shot the teen.
READ: Trayvon Martin Shooting: A timeline of events
Taking the stand Friday, John Good said he was at home watching television with his wife when he heard a "faint noise" that seemed to be getting closer. Outside, he said he saw the person on top of another man.
The man on the bottom, who he said he now believes is George Zimmerman, yelled for help.
"At first it was "What's going on," and no one answered,' " Good said, describing calling out to the men. "And then at that point the person on the bottom, I could finally see, I heard a 'help.' Then at some point I said 'Cut it out.' And then, 'I'm calling 911.' That's when I thought it was getting really serious."
The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.
"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"
"That's what it looked like," Good answered.
Good said he then went back inside to call 911. As he was dialing the phone, he heard a gunshot. His 911 call was played in court as the jury listened.
"I just heard a shot right behind my house. They're wrestling right in back of my porch," Good said on the recording. "...I'm pretty sure the guy's dead out here. Holy sh--."
Later, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term "ground and pound" before he did.
"It's possible," Good said.
De la Rionda honed in on Good's earlier statement that he couldn't confirm the person on top was hitting the other person.
"Correct," Good said.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
Tero wrote:TM was on top. All they need to prove is
1 gun was hidden
2 TM attacked first
Boils down to stand your ground now includes lay on your ground.
What does this even mean? Do you understand what Stand Your Ground is? It does not sound as if you do.
From the top: Stand your ground only comes into play when you have the right to use force in self-defense. If you do not have the right to legally use force in self defense, then stand your ground is meaningless. That is, if you haven't been attacked, stand your ground is irrelevant. In other words, the law says we can defend ourselves with deadly force if we are confronted with deadly force or grievous bodily harm. Traditional self-defense requires, however, that if you can reasonably run away or flee instead of using deadly force instead of defending yourself, then you have to do that. The problem that arose with that kind of rule, though, is that it is very difficult to know in a split second encounter whether you can run away or whether you can't, and people who acted in self defense were getting convicted of crimes because they didn't run. Stand your ground says this and only this: if you can legally act in self defense, you do not have to run away. You can act in self defense. It doesn't say anything more than that.
But, yes - if TM attacked first, then he's the aggressor. That would tend to show that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Self-defense is a defense to murder, and rightly so. Why wouldn't it be?
Do you feel you are making sense?Tero wrote:
I don't think there is anything interesting to drag it to a month or half a year.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51321
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
>>Do you feel you are making sense?<<
About what? Length of trial? My arson trial took 3 weeks with a break for an illness in the middle. A trivial case with no deaths or injuries.
About what? Length of trial? My arson trial took 3 weeks with a break for an illness in the middle. A trivial case with no deaths or injuries.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51321
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
Boils down to stand your ground now includes lay on your ground.

- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: State v Zimmerman
Zimmerman had a concealed handgun on him. Why didn't he pull it when he saw that he was going to be assaulted? How did he end up allowing Martin so close that they wrestled instead?
If his intention was to confront with force, if he was hunting, why wasn't he ready with gun drawn? A cop would have been.
If his intention was to confront with force, if he was hunting, why wasn't he ready with gun drawn? A cop would have been.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51321
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: State v Zimmerman
In FL
It is unlawful to have or carry a firearm in the presence of one or more persons and exhibit the firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manners, except in cases of self-defense.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystat ... aws_fl.htm
So you pretty much have to pull out the gun at the last second and shoot to kill.
It is unlawful to have or carry a firearm in the presence of one or more persons and exhibit the firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manners, except in cases of self-defense.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystat ... aws_fl.htm
So you pretty much have to pull out the gun at the last second and shoot to kill.
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: State v Zimmerman
From your quote: "except in cases of self-defense."
If Zimmerman had reason to think he needed to defend himself then he could legally have produced the weapon and could have done so legally prior to physical contact had he had time enough to perceive the imminent threat. So what circumstances would have prevented him from doing that?
If Zimmerman had reason to think he needed to defend himself then he could legally have produced the weapon and could have done so legally prior to physical contact had he had time enough to perceive the imminent threat. So what circumstances would have prevented him from doing that?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests