I am beginning to see a pattern in your arguments; simply dismiss inculpatory scenarios. With all your hand waving, I am surprised you manage to keep your feet on the ground.
When your nose is broken, as mine has, your eyes tend to tear up and you can’t see clearly for a period of time. Trayvon must have gotten in a lot of free shots before Zimmerman could react.
And yet we are not allowed to speculate without concrete evidence about Zimmerman initiating the confrontation by assaulting Martin.
Simply amazing.
The burden of proof is on those accusing him. A burden that, as yet, they have entirely failed to meet.
You don’t get to say someone is a murderer based on flimsy circumstantial evidence and might-have-beens. You need solid proof.
Once again, for like the 4th or 5th time, this thread is not a trial. The rules for posting in this thread are not the same as the rules for getting to speak in court and admit evidence during a trial. This is an opinion and speculation thread. Again, it is the title of the thread. I’m getting a little sick of you guys constantly trying to stifle discussion to only what you want to talk about by using this burden of proof, and admissability into court nonsense for anything said against Zimmerman. This is a damn internet discussion, you don’t get to file an objection or instruct the jury to disregard anything, because THERE IS NO JURY AND THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A TRIAL. Anyone can say anything they like in this thread and proof or solid evidence is not necessary for the right to be able to voice one’s opinion. Just look at how you guys have speculated and blown up what Martin did that night way beyond any evidence or proof. But that’s ok huh? The physical evidence on Martin and Zimmerman show that he was punched in the face once. There is no physical evidence or witness testimony to prove beyond a doubt that any further beating occurred. You can speculate that more happened, but the evidence is not there to prove it. You can believe whatever you like and speculate to your hearts content, noone is saying that you can’t. But you don’t get to tell others that they can’t speculate or say what they think. Because that’s not how internet discussions work.
They are using Zimmerman’s own words as “proof”. Which is just bizarre.
And I believe that Steophan is mistaken about just how much proof is needed to convict Zimmerman of murder . Remember, all that is keeping his ass from being convicted (forget 2nd degree) is evidence that he committed a crime during his encounter with Martin. He can’t stand his ground if he was in the wrong to begin with. All it takes is one piece of convincing information that he wasn’t on the up-and-up that night, and the guy is going down.
The prosecution does not have to disprove every claim the guy made. But it can present a heap of evidence indicating that his story is far-fetched, in addition to something else that fingers him as a criminal on that night. They can put expert witnesses on the stand to testify about the likelihood of someone punching and slamming and smothering a guy in the face without absorbing any of the guy’s DNA. They can reenact every permutation of the fight scene to demonstrate the unlikelihood that Zimmerman would have been able to pin Martin’s arm back while drawing his weapon and then firing the gun without leaving any gun shot residue, in the direction required for the bullet to course this Martin’s body the way it did. They can bring every single witness on the stand and ask them about the nature of that screaming, and they can play the screaming in tandem with Zimmerman’s simulation to show the jury they sure don’t sound the same. If they can show that the guy was snooping around the club house, potentially seeing Martin way before he called the non-emergency number, this brings into question his credibility as well.
If I am a suspect in a crime and I tell the police that I saw the neighbor’s pet monkey do it, the prosecution does not have to present unassailable evidence that the monkey couldn’t have done it as long as they have some other piece of information–like my fingerprints on the weapon or witness testimony–that trumps my word. We don’t know the prosecution’s full hand yet. All attempts to render a “not guilty” verdict before we know what they know, given how many discrepancies are in Zimmerman’s testimony, is just plain stupid.
I notice you refused to answer mine.
I just realized that Zimmerman is supposedly being treated for PTSD now, rather than prior to the killing. Apologies.
Yes, I did. Unlike Magiver’s response to mine, I gave yours a REAL answer. But you did not answer mine. And you STILL haven’t! As much as Joel has made me roll my eyes these past several weeks, at least he gave it a good shot.
If you don’t think the prosecution is going to bring this up in court, you are sadly mistaken. And O’Mara had better come up with a better rebuttal than “It’s a pointless question!”
You probably missed my question then. Here it is again:
Please explain to me how whether you minded your own business or not changes your perception of whether at the time that you’re lying knocked on the ground, nose broken, blood on your face, being straddled by someone who is pinning you down - whether at that time you’re fearing for your life or not? You mean if you didn’t “mind your business” before the attack on you, then you would not fear for your life, but if you did “mind your business” you would? Is that what you’re claiming? I am just trying to get your train of thought here.
I will patiently wait for your answer.
Terr, please stop jerking me around.
For those interested in more speculation…here’s a glimspe into the nature of the evidence O’Mara is intent on keeping hidden. It is a statement from Witness 9, who apparently received “jail calls” from Zimmerman. The rumor mill has it that Witness 9 is supposedly Zimmerman’s ex-girlfriend.
Apparently one statement has already been disclosed, but the second statement is–in O’Mara’s opinion–one that will led to “widespread hostile publicity” that will impede Zimmerman’s fair trial rights. O’Mara also says the statement is irrevelant to the court case and will not be admissible.
This is interesting to me. I wonder if we will ever learn what this is all about.
I am not. You are for some reason fascinated with why there was no Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s hands. I, for the sake of argument (only), agree that Zimmerman was lying and that all Martin was doing was pinning Zimmerman down for 40 seconds straight.
So - with that in mind, and even again agreeing again for the sake of argument that Zimmerman didn’t “mind his own business” before the fight, please answer - at the time that you’re lying knocked on the ground, nose broken, blood on your face, being straddled by someone who is pinning you down - at that time is it reasonable to fear for your life or not?
Yes, as I said before.
And as I said before, I don’t get how this is at all relevant to the question of whether Zimmerman is a credible person who should be given all benefit of the doubt. Are you going to stop beating around the bush and make your point? Or are you going to continue jerking me around with crazy questions?
I am not fascinated by anything. I am frustrated by the crickets, that’s what I am. I am demanding people who are swallowing Zimmerman’s story to defend the gaping hole that is flapping in the wind: the lack of supporting physical evidence. I have no doubt in my mind that if a microdrop of blood had been found on Martin’s little pinky finger, you would be holding that up as absolute proof that Martin was a thuggish ruffian who’d pounded the hell out of Zimmerman. And as crazy as that argument is, it would also be hard to challenge it. So I am asking you to either concede that this doesn’t look good towards Zimmerman’s credibility or stand up and convince the teeming millions why it’s not that big of a deal. You’ve come this far. Why stop now?
And not only that, explain the absence of gunshot residue. Maybe the rain washed away the DNA, if it was sparse to begin with, but is it possible it washed away all the gunpowder too? Wouldn’t there have been a whole lot of it on the both of them if the gun had been fired the way Zimmerman said it had?
Put up your dukes and actually stand your ground, folks. Zimmerman needs you to create his defense for him.
I’m not mistaken about how much proof they need to convict him of murder. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. So, what we need is one piece of convincing evidence that cannot be reasonably explained other than by his guilt. There is no such evidence in the public domain as yet.
I suspect what they will need is proof that Zimmerman assaulted Martin prior to Martin hitting him. As they have no witness statement that says that, and no physical evidence of an attack on Martin, I believe that a confession from Zimmerman is the only thing that would suffice.
Also, I believe you’re still confused between SYG and self defence.
He would not be able to stand his ground if he’d committed a crime, but he would still be able to defend himself if he was unable to escape. Such as, for example, if someone had punched him to the ground and was on top of him continuing the attack.
I understand that a lot of people dislike this aspect of the Florida self defence law. But disliking it doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to this case.
So you DO think that Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life at the time he shot Martin? Then he should be acquitted, according to the law. Agreed?
Apparently you haven’t read the discovery documents. Yes, there is gunshot residue consistent with contact shot on clothes and close (inches away) shot on Martin’s skin.
You just did. You agreed that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life at the time he shot Martin. That’s his defense and that is why he should be acquitted.
It sounds to me like his ex-fiancee repeated her accusations about Zimmerman being a racist during a phone call to Zimmerman. It doesn’t sound like they are talking about anything Zimmerman said. Look at page 4, paragraph 2. I bet Zimmerman is going to have some explaining to do to his wife about why he was calling his ex-girllfriend.
It’s really weird if this is the same ex-girlfriend that issued a restraining order against him.
His defense is a crazy-ass story that does not fit with any of the physical evidence.
His defense, sufficient to get him acquitted according to Florida law:
at the time that you’re lying knocked on the ground, nose broken, blood on your face, being straddled by someone who is pinning you down - it is reasonable to fear for your life.
You agreed with it. So - which part of the above do you think doesn’t fit with any of the physical evidence?