If any of Zimmerman’s blood had been on Martin, it would probably be on Martin’s hands. They clipped Martin’s fingernails and tested them, but they didn’t take swabs from Martin’s hands, so we don’t know if there was any of Zimmerman’s blood on his hands.
They did find some of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s clothing. Why don’t you actually read the evidence instead of speculating from false premises?
Why don’t you answer questions without being condescending?
I had never heard anything about Zimmerman’s blood being on Martin’s clothing to this point. How much was there? An amount consistent with a savage, brutal, sustained beating and attempted asphyxiation? Or a couple of drops?
One of the drops was Zimmerman’s and some were mixed and there were some that were inconclusive. Since the fight took about a minute and Martin was on top I’m not surprised that little of Zimmerman’s blood ended up on Martin’s clothing. That is consistent with Martin being on top as Witness #6.
I’m being condescending, because the post you responded too has a pdf that breaks it down blood stain by blood stain.
As the other poster who has it can tell you, sacroillitis is a form of arthritis, which can’t be gotten immediately. From the doctor’s report, it appears Zimmerman also sprained his back.
Dawning on you yet that you’ve probably been defending a murderer for the last few months?[/QUOTE]
No what is dawning on me is that the sane pro-martin people have moved on when they realized the evidence was against them. What is left is people that argue that Zimmerman is a cold blooded murder and can’t be bothered to let their delusions be diluted by actual evidence.
“Very little blood of GZ conclusively found on Trayvon Martin” and nothing listed in the chart as conclusive for Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s clothing. Nothing. Now I’m wondering whether you actually read the PDF or not.
So, that is consistent with a brutal, savage and sustained beating/suffocation?
You really think this is obvious? My questions still stand. Just replace none with no conclusive blood found, and tell me how you can straddle someone beating them brutally for a sustained period of time when ~45% of his face is covered in blood and Zimmerman’s jacket has blood all over it, but nothing conclusive ends up on Martin’s clothing? Do you really see no problem with this? Really?
Replace ‘sustained period of time’ with ‘one minute’. Keep in mind that we actually heard most of the beating on the 911 recording, so most of the bleeding happened after Martin was dead. The blood on Martin’s jacket would be when he sat up and the blood started dripping on his jacket. Until Zimmerman had a chance to sit up the blood would have ended up on the walk way or the grass.
He’s probably the only lawyer saying this since many of us stopped venturing into this thread regularly. I think you might be so involved with this that you’re not following direct case citations proving the issue or it’s just a disparity between lawyer and non-lawyer arguments.
Yes, the defense has to raise the affirmative defense of self defense and show some basis for it (apparently some states don’t require it be proven by even a preponderance of the evidence) and then the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If I had a chance and thought it would help, I’d show you some model jury instructions.
Here’s a link that summarizes this case, with citations to case law:
I’m sorry you with the face has trouble grasping this, and I’ve tried to make room for the possibility that this is, as Jeanie suggests, just because it’s something obvious to lawyers but very contradictory to non-lawyers. But whatever the barrier to understanding is, the bottom line is, as a matter of established and crystal clear case law, when Zimmerman claims self-defense, the state must disprove the elements of self-defense, which include disproving he was afraid or proving that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was not reasonable. That’s not a matter of opinion, that’s not up for a vote, that’s the law of the State of Florida.
This, combined with the police correcting and coaching witness testimony as to who was screaming for help, is further evidence of not just simple incompetence on the part of SPD, but active bias and misconduct.
It’s no wonder why witnesses have since retracted and corrected parts of their original statements.
Not only is that bullshit, and you know it, but the assertion that Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer (which I’ve openly disagreed with) is not even as ridiculous and delusional than what you assert as the actions and motivations of Martin.
Looked through it. Nothing new, really. Certainly nothing explosive.
So, Bricker, the possibilities of that evidence that Corey has and we haven’t seen are narrowing more and more. We can pretty much eliminate any witness statement as being that evidence. In fact, the only thing left are Zimmerman’s text messages.
So - what do you think a text message could possibly say to justify murder 2 charge, much less conviction?
My position isn’t that the State doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. My position is that the State can disprove self-defense without demonstrating anything about the accused’s beliefs, like Bricker has insisted.
The prosecution could show that the accused forfeited their claim to self-defense by initiating the conflict or failing to retreat. To prove 2nd degree murder, the State is going to have to prove Zimmerman did these two things. In his case, evidence for murder automatically destroys his self-defense claim. They can not co-exist with each other.
If what I’m saying is wrong, it would be nice to see Florida’s jury instructions. Here are Connecticut’s. An excerpt:
It makes it pretty clear that George’s hands were definitely free the whole time.
How can he be in a fight with someone he outweighs by 40-50lbs with his hands completely free, afraid for his life…yet Martin doesn’t have a mark on him other than the gunshot wound?