The sound of professional medical testimony.
So he was beaten so bad, ordinary people would be unable to see it?
The bandage applied to Zimmerman’s head? That wasn’t EMT-issued. That was stuck on him by his girlfriend.
Is she a doctor? Do you think her testimony will count?
What’s your point?
The problem is that it’s hard even to accept Martin tried grabbing the gun, so I can’t go there with you. If the gun was holstered on the back of his right hip (and Zimmerman indicates it was during the reenactment), there is no way Martin could have seen it, let alone tried grabbing it. So that too smacks of self-serving lie along with the rest.
The only thing that isn’t obviously a lie is the claim that Martin punched him at least once, and that’s only because we don’t have evidence to contradict this happening. If Zimmerman was in fear for his life because Martin punched him, you would think he would say he was punched and threatened right before he fired his gun. But he doesn’t say this. He says he was smothered and threatened. Maybe he thinks being smothered is a stronger case for SD than punching, and that’s why he lied? But that would suggest he wasn’t really in fear of his life when he was punched. One would expect that if a punch caused him to shoot, he would choose to exaggerate the forcefulness of the punch to paint the picture of extreme violence. I would not expect him to replace the punch with a claim of being smothered.
I have no doubt the pictures of him will be shown in court.
OMG, are you serious? He’s beating the crap out of Zimmerman and see’s a gun.
I can’t see a scenario where he WOULDN’T grab it considering the purpose of the gun is self defense and would certainly be used on him given the opportunity.
Then you should explain how Martin could see the gun if it was attached to the back of Zimmerman’s right rear hip, and he was sitting astride Zimmerman’s lap. Also remember they were fighting in the dark.
Absolutely right, but not complete. They must also prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they have two major tasks:
1: Prove that A, B, C, D and E happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
2: Prove that no other reasonable scenarios happened.
It’s not insignificant, but it’s not enough. Just because Zimmerman’s statements are DISbelieved is not enough to believe that something else happened. For example, Zimmerman says, “He hit me first.”
You say to yourself, “Z is a liar; I don’t believe that M hit Z first.”
Can you, from that alone, conclude that Z hit M first?
No.
they were fighting at dusk and Zimmerman was struggling with Martin on the ground. People were able to see 2 people fighting at a distance and through windows.
Now that you have gotten the indisputable out of the way, explain how Martin could have seen a gun that was holstered to the rear of Zimmerman’s hip, while Zimmerman was lying on his back.
I have no idea what your goals are. I said, "As a member of a jury (ie. not the internet), you will be asked to determine whether you believed the defendant is guilty “of the crime they are charged with”.
The prosecutors job is to try to prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a law was violated and that the defendent did it. The jury gets to decide if the actual charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a member of the internet, you’re free to search for your own information and present it anyway you wish. As a member of a petite jury, your inputs are limited to what has been presented in court. You can’t bring in your own evidence.
You’re expected to use your own common sense, BS detector, and personal experience to reach a conclusion. Even if that conclusion is that you can’t reach a conclusion (hung jury).
I already did. Zimmerman wasn’t just laying there saying “thank you sir, may I have another”. He was struggling to get out from under Martin. that would involve twisting and turning and trying to get the gun himself.
As with all your other theories, prove Zimmerman wrong.
I like a good argument as much as the next guy, but endless repetitions of Zimmerman was looking for Martin, not a street sign is boring. You guys need some new material.
I wonder what “facts” have led the defense counsel to say this. And what has possessed him to make this kind of pronouncement, days after requesting a SYG hearing.
Even if he doesn’t think Zimmerman’s case is SYG, he has nothing to lose by trying for acquittal on these grounds versus a regular self-defense claim. So his strategy is puzzling on its face. I guess, though, if he’s trying to avoid putting Zimmerman on the stand it makes sense. But wouldn’t that take a SYG hearing off the table?
Why does it seem like every month, we can count on Zimmerman and O’Mara to entertain us with WTFness?
You can’t just invent stuff to make an incredible claim become more credible. You have to go by what Zimmerman said, and he never said he flipped and flopped so much that his back was presented to Martin’s face.
He explains it.
“People look at `stand your ground’ and immediately think somebody’s standing there with deadly force – be it a gun or a weapon – and having the opportunity to back up but not having the need to under the statute,” he said. "I think the evidence in this case suggests that my client was reacting to having his nose broken and reacted to that by screaming out for help.
“He wasn’t in position where I think there was any suggestion where he could retreat, which he is allowed to do under the statute.”
And he is going to do this. What’s the problem?
The SYG hearing is going to happen. O’Mara didn’t say anything that would suggest it isn’t.
:rolleyes: Seriously? You asked me how it could happen. I explained it to you. In court he’s going to show how it happened to the jury.
again, the State has to prove it didn’t happen.
We don’t have to accept anything Zimmerman says.
Just wipe out everything Zimmerman says.
The only thing we know are the physical evidence and what was recorded on the NEN and 911 calls and what the witnesses said afterword.
The only relevant part is after the end of the NEN call to Zimmerman.
We simply have no witnesses or evidence that Zimmerman initiated the altercation. This means that Zimmerman will be acquitted. For the SYG hearing it is different. There is simply no evidence to say that Zimmerman is innocent. The evidence and witnesses are consistent with Zimmermans statements, but we have already stipulated that we would ignore what he said and don’t know means don’t know. We know that the fight started at the top of the T. We know that Martin wasn’t injured during the fight. We don’t know who started the fight. A judge might make inferences, but I don’t what inferences a judge might consider reasonable.
He really has to be off with rocker with the point in bold. What does Zimmernan’s supposed broken nose have to do with anything? Zimmerman never gave that as the reason for shooting Martin. Sounds like the lawyer here is speculating about Zimmerman’s true motivation for killing Martin as opposed to taking his client at his word that it was the threat and smothering that did it.
Just because he says he was on his back doesn’t mean he wasn’t in the position to retreat, though. He wasn’t paralyzed. His arms were free. His legs were capable of moving as well. So that’s not a clear cut thing at all.
By leaving this as a possible SYG matter, it makes the subject of retreat a non-issue. Making retreat a non-issue only helps the defense. If the prosecution demonstrates that Zimmerman could have retreated but didn’t, then in a SYG case, it’s still possible to argue that Zimmerman acted lawfully.
But if we’re talking about regular self-defense and the state proves that Zimmerman could have retreated but didn’t, then the defense loses.
So you don’t see anything weird about O’Mara going on record to say this doesn’t count as a SYG defense prior to asking the court to grant his client SYG immunity? Okay, dude.