George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10

[Inobu]

IMO someone in another thread commented that TM could have said "You shot me" and GZ misunderstood. I can absolutely see someone that is surprised at being shot saying "you shot me!".

IMO I absolutely can NOT see this type of attack ending with a formal "verbal submission" followed by the attacker gracefully getting off of the victim GZ. Not sure if others have seen urban street fighting videos but they are incredibly fast, furious, and frenzied. The whole point is to overwhelm the target with a series of blows and get them on the ground so fast they can't think or hit back. I think that is exactly what TM did to GZ and GZ didn't even have a chance against it.

IMO

Look at the full mount position. For an unskilled fighter the only way up if some one let you up.

IN that position GZ had no access to his gun.

 

[sorrell skye]

Not in my book. He's testified for and against, he testifies for the person who seems to be in the right based on his collection of evidence.

IMHO

I agree. Serpico testified against other LE (risking his own life to do so).

 

[sacrablue]

Welcome to the real world Dennis Root. IMO

 

[Donnareit]

IMO someone in another thread commented that TM could have said "You shot me" and GZ misunderstood. I can absolutely see someone that is surprised at being shot saying "you shot me!".

IMO I absolutely can NOT see this type of attack ending with a formal "verbal submission" followed by the attacker gracefully getting off of the victim GZ. Not sure if others have seen urban street fighting videos but they are incredibly fast, furious, and frenzied. The whole point is to overwhelm the target with a series of blows and get them on the ground so fast they can't think or hit back. I think that is exactly what TM did to GZ and GZ didn't even have a chance against it.

IMO

IMO, Sonya, "You shot me" makes better sense than "You got me." To me TM making that statement brings up a picture of him standing or kneeling then grabbing his chest with both hands and falling forward with his hands under him. I could see GZ then scrambling over him, standing up and placing his hands on TM's back as several people testified they saw him do. He might then have realized that TM would not be getting back up and holstered his weapon.
:moo:

 

[Sonya610]

The forensic explanation of yesterdays witness pretty much proves TM was on top. Even TH's are agreeing to this, he was an incredible witness for the defense.

Very true. At first the prosecution was trying to make the case that GZ may have been on top.

Now they are basically saying "Well Tm was on top but maybe he was getting off as he was shot".

IMO

 

[?noanswer]

My live feed went out and I didn't hear how long they are taking for lunch. Has this witness been dismissed?

JMO

 

[costalpilot]

Here is the problem. TM has been 'baby-fied' due to how this case was in the media from the very beginning. That the idea that a 17 year old, unarmed teenager who was in fit condition could not harm/kill someone else simply because he was 17 or unarmed is fallacy to me. The idea that this 17 year old could not have acted out against that 'creepy white ****' and threw the first punch simply because he's a 'kid' is also fallacy.

no kiddin

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Look at the full mount position. For an unskilled fighter the only way up if some one let you up.

IN that position GZ had no access to his gun.

No. The only way up when you are being pounded into the ground is to shoot and defend your person.

By your own argument. If TM saw the gun as GZ said or touched his side near it It had to be exposed or felt which would make sense that TM made an adjustment to be able to have access to it.

 

[pkz]

Zimmerman said the gun was behind his hip.

On the walk through video, he demonstrates that it was behind his hip.

DUMMY visual is flawed. IMO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

You are right IMO opinion TM is the victim here without GZ actions that day he would have made it home to watch the basketball game with his dad and his skittles and watermelon ice tea.

I thought his father wasn't home? Imo.

 

[ShadyLady]

Added to a long list of things about this trial that have shown a sad side of our society... It is wrong to want to be a cop, it is naive to think "all" teenagers don't do (XYZ), *lots* of kids can't read cursive these days, and one of the worst " just because you think it's wrong when your teenager doesn't come home at night, and what you might do.... is a cultural difference". It's easy to be discouraged if you watch this trial and listen to peoples' attitudes!

As a country this trial has shown me we are in deep S***.

A boy that doesn't come home....and father does not call POLICE ASAP....girlfriend that hides....because it was "JUST A FIGHT"????

So fighting on streets is ok in her book?

 

[Myvice]

You are IMO forgetting who is the victim here.

I thought that this case was about establishing who the victim is. If Zimmerman is found not guilty due to self defense I would assume he is the victim. Especially after the media has lied and attacked him and he has had a bounty on his head. MOO

 

[Snoods]

Hello lisasalinger, thank you for your reply, I do appreciate the long, cordial, thoughtful rebuttal in yesterday's thread which I unfortunately missed. So kindly allow me to return the honor.

When I offered in the older post that "there is *no proof* to support the versions of events as stated by GZ, no GZ DNA on TM, indicating at least *some* physical contact, no lethal weapon on TM, no signs of 25 blows on the concrete sidewalk, no eye witness accounts, etc.", I meant that strictly with regard to the case for self-defense. What I referred to specifically is the “imminent death/great bodily harm” scenario necessary, which IMO remains unproven by existing evidence or testimony.

IMO, the several paragraphs of descriptions in your post could match *some* of GZ’s account in general, however, the crux of the case rests not on supporting *some* of GZ’s account, but on providing definitive evidence that GZ *was* confronted with a situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” to justify killing TM. Therefore every scenario described has to pass the criteria/test of demonstrating a situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” to enter as evidence on GZ’s side. The question needs to be asked each time, “Is this a life or death situation for GZ?”, for every eye witness testimony or physical evidence, eg. JG's testimony or GZ’s injuries.

How TM was shot was not in question. However, even if TM was straddling GZ, this is still not an imminent death threat to GZ. That TM did grab, slam, punch GZ are all conjecture because there’s really no DNA of GZ on TM to indicate any of these actions at all. It is as if someone claims to have used a glass for drinking several rounds of beer yet there’s *no fingerprints* on the glass, and those who try to uphold this claim try to explain the absence of fingerprints through various incongruous hypotheses. The clearest and most reasonable explanation is that the glass has not been used at all, unless there’s tampering with evidence. Unlike fingerprints, DNA cannot be wiped away, *some* blood and flesh will remain even in minute quantities, especially when no one tampered with the sidewalk, TM’s corpse or clothes. So lack of any, even the slightest, traces of contact between TM and GZ is damning evidence that they were not engaged in any significant physical struggle.

IMO, no situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” has been described.

John Good's testimony does not constitute evidence that TM was delivering potentially lethal force that justifies his own killing/death. If JG had seen exactly what GZ was describing, his head being “slammed onto concrete many times”, then that could be entered as evidence of imminent death or great bodily harm. What JG described was a *potential* fight scenario, the blows or punches aren’t even clear to JG. Notice JG could not even claim it was a fight, only that one was on top of the other and there were up and down arm motions. Since GZ injuries were in the face and head, ie unprotected by clothing, flesh and blood DNA would have been left on TM’s hands if TM was indeed punching and pummeling his face and head many times without gloves. IMO

Males in general are not alien to fighting, especially for an MMA trainer. The whole altercation lasted at most 2 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that GZ could fight back for at least 2 minutes, yet his gun was drawn almost immediately after the encounter happened. IMO


Witnesses did not describe a potentially life-threatening scenario. When two men are scuffling for a minute or two, there is no reason to believe that one is going to die or suffer great bodily harm, unless a lethal weapon is present.


If being near a concrete sidewalk can be accepted as the equivalent of carrying a lethal weapon, then *all* of us are carrying a lethal weapon anywhere where there’re sticks, stones, bricks and concrete, so I am not ready to accept that being near a concrete sidewalk = wielding a loaded gun or a large sharp knife.

The implications of this analogy by defense is troubling - BOTH parties are able to "wield" the concrete sidewalk, so to speak. Being "armed" implies being equipped with an overwhelming advantage to deliver lethal force. The concrete sidewalk cannot be TM's "lethal weapon", as this is a "lethal weapon" that is available to all, therefore it isn't. It doesn't tip the balance of power at all, unlike a gun. Imagine the term "unarmed civilian" can no longer apply if a hard ground is present..."Your honor, I have to kill him because he could kill me by smashing me against the hard ground/wall/column", that would absurd.

Besides, there is no evidence of the "head slamming on concrete by TM", no GZ’s DNA on TM, no blood on concrete found, no eye witness account, no medical examiner documentation even, etc. again, only GZ’s version of events.



I agree with you that GZ's perception matters as well. I perceive differently because the police/ME couldn’t detect *any* GZ DNA on TM, thus showing the two might not even have had any close physical contact, let alone the “pounding and slamming on concrete” scenario. It is also possible that GZ’s injuries were created via other avenues than at the hands of TM. So GZ’s perception does not match the reality - the lack of evidence of lethal, bloody, forceful physical fight with TM.

Short of tampering with the DNA evidence by the police or ME, i.e. the equivalent of wiping fingerprints away, the absence of *any* evidence makes me skeptical that I should go on GZ’s account alone.


IMO, nothing described in your post, lasting under 2 minutes, could *reasonably* compel GZ to fear for his life. GZ isn’t a frail elderly person unable to fight back for these couple of minutes. Drawing a gun and shooting to kill (aiming at heart)within a matter of seconds of a close encounter, IMO, shows a reckless attitude and an indifference to the other person's life.

If I were to be attacked by another 40 lbs smaller, 12 years younger person, for 2 minutes, there is simply no way that he or she could kill me with his bare hands within that timeframe.

If being in a fight alone is justification enough for self-defense in the killing of another person, then there is no need for the “imminent death/great bodily harm” clause/condition attached to qualify as self-defense. IMO

If all the evidence points to the contrary, eg. blood DNA of GZ were to be found on TM, eye witnesses seeing slamming of GZ’s head, concrete showing traces of GZ’s blood, fight lasted longer with GZ losing, and GZ sustained greater injuries, eg. concussion, etc., if any of these had surfaced, I would of course take the opposite position, that indeed GZ acted in self-defense.

Unfortunately, the *opposite* had happened, ie. the positive evidence of “imminent death/great bodily harm” scenario do not exist, while the negative does, showing TM had little to no physical contact with GZ.


All respectfully offered and always stated as my own humble opinion.
:cheers:

BBM It is possible. The teen who punched his coach in the head once and the coach went into a coma and died.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-jail-killing-soccer-referee-punch-head.html

 

[Foxfire]

Haven't been posting, only lerking on this thread, and can barely keep up. Noticed that emotions are running very high..

I've followed the HLN coverage of the GZ trial everyday/all day & into the night. Imo, there will be an acquittal. If not, a reversal unless there is political pressure/interference from the US Attorney/Justice Dept, due to likely repercussions and the aftermath of an acquittal verdict..imo

New PSA released ahead of Zimmerman verdict
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/319401/4/New-PSA-released-ahead-of-Zimmerman-verdict

 

[costalpilot]

wow youve never killed someone

why is that a good point

 

[mom23gr8kids]

Look at the full mount position. For an unskilled fighter the only way up if some one let you up.

IN that position GZ had no access to his gun.

Are you watching the trial? MOM just physically showed how it would be possibly from different positions that he absolutely would have had access to the holster still. JMO

 

[Inobu]

Here is the problem. TM has been 'baby-fied' due to how this case was in the media from the very beginning. That the idea that a 17 year old, unarmed teenager who was in fit condition could not harm/kill someone else simply because he was 17 or unarmed is fallacy to me. The idea that this 17 year old could not have acted out against that 'creepy white ****' and threw the first punch simply because he's a 'kid' is also fallacy.

I totally agree. When the witness stated that TM was on top that pretty much shows what happened during one portion of the fight.

The question is how did GZ gain access to his gun from a full mount.

 

[nnglas]

According to the witness yesterday as to where GZ's truck was parked it was right in front of addresses that he could have easily seen from his truck, but he then drove his truck onto the curb and then ran to find an address???

This. IMO if I saw someone following me and I started running and they ran off after me. I would fear for my life. TM was unarmed, walking alone at night. GZ was following the "suspect" with a loaded weapon, and he was scared for his life? The argument is unreal to me. Does GZ have more right to protect himself then TM?

GZ doesn't have any defensive wounds at all. He didn't even try to fight back? His only option was to shoot an unarmed kid? Really?

The whole thing is just really sad. And completely avoidable.

IMO GZ was playing cop that night. The numerous times he called TM a suspect further demonstrates to me that he thought he was one of "them".

Side note: Was GZ walking around his house with a loaded weapon cocked and ready to go? Did he strap it on when he left to go to Target?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katiewonders]

I don't know why people keep referring to this as a fight...
It wasn't two guys calling each other out...
It wasn't two drunks at a bar getting into it...

This was an assault by TM...All the evidence points to GZ story being true...
GZ did nothing wrong...

This is why you never get into it with a complete stranger...
You end up screwing with the wrong guy...
IMO...

BBM Which is why I have learned to not react to the general A-holes I have met in my daily walk through my life. Back when I was going through the big M, I had lots less patience and would say something back. Thank goodness, I didn't talk back to the wrong gal. Now, I just smile and smile and smile, it's all good.

 

[BiggNewt]

Very true. At first the prosecution was trying to make the case that GZ may have been on top.

Now they are basically saying "Well Tm was on top but maybe he was getting off as he was shot".

IMO

Exactly, it seems they have conceded that Martin was on top after countless witnesses debunked anything of the contrary. And with very little left after conceding that point, a pulling away is the argument here. But it's not a very good one, the damage had been done, if in that second he pulled just slightly away (which the ME yesterday said didn't happen), it really doesn't show that Martin was giving up the fight. It's not long enough for anyone, especially Zimmerman to comprehend that. IMO