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 GZs account in general, however, the crux of the case rests not on supporting *some* of GZs 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 GZs 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 GZs 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 theres 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 theres *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 theres 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, TMs 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 arent 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 TMs 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 therere 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 GZs DNA on TM, no blood on concrete found, no eye witness account, no medical examiner documentation even, etc. again, only GZs version of events.
I agree with you that GZ's perception matters as well. I perceive differently because the police/ME couldnt 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 GZs injuries were created via other avenues than at the hands of TM. So GZs 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 GZs account alone.
IMO, nothing described in your post, lasting under 2 minutes, could *reasonably* compel GZ to fear for his life. GZ isnt 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 GZs head, concrete showing traces of GZs 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:
