Because almost all the evidence that the prosecution can present is out in public. And there is no “there” there.
The only thing they possibly can have up their sleeve is some kind of “smoking gun” in Zimmerman’s phone records. But I very much doubt it.
I offered you a bet that the prosecution will not come even close to convicting on murder 2 charges. So far you refuse to take it. So I guess you can’t put your money where your mouth is.
The firearm was in Zimmerman’s waistband. His goal was to get the aggressor (Martin) off of him before he lost consciousness. Martin was also going for the gun. ANY shot, a gut shot or even a shot through the side would have stopped the attack. Why go to the extra effort (in spite of feeling like you’re loosing consciousness and knowing Martin is going for the gun) to pull all the way up to chest level and fire a through and through of the chest? Especially, when that brings his hand and the gun between them and right in range for Martin to grab it off of him? If the goal is to stop the attack, why not just shoot him through the side? A gut shot that happened to hit the heart would be easy, but the autopsy didn’t show that.
Zimmerman claims that Martin was wailing on him. How can you do that an not have injuries to your fists? So, it isn’t pretzel logic, it is actually a pretty straight forward question. If I pound on someone with my fists so hard that it feels “like he was hitting me with bricks or something”, there should be evidence that I’ve done that. I’m not disputing that Zimmerman has injuries, I’m disputing how they happened.
The witness “John” said he saw the guy in the light shirt on top, then said it was the red shirt. John also claims it was very dark and he couldn’t tell there was a man beneath until after, then says the man on the bottom was dressed in all black.
Martin was in a grey hoodie tan pants and white shoes. I would not describe Zimmerman’s red jacket as “light”.
So, I don’t give much weight to that part of his statement and I freely admit that. I believe he saw the two people, but that is it.
Yes. It means no reasonable person could believe there is any other plausible interpretation of the evidence other than the defendant’s guilt.
You keep focussing on the fact that it’s possible that Zimmerman is lying. That’s irrelevant at trial, though. What’s relevant is the question of whether it’s possible he’s telling the truth. If it is, he’s not guilty.
I and others have presented plausible scenarios which fit all the available evidence in which Zimmerman did not commit murder. Therefore, absent the revelation of new evidence, he is not guilty of murder. The likelihood of these scenarios isn’t relevant, as long as a reasonable person would consider them possible.
Gotta love the Monday morning quarterbacking. Have you been in this situation, personally? Is that where you get your expertise?
Is Zimmerman’s broken nose and black eyes self-inflicted, in your opinion? This is actually a pretty straightforward question.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/05/zimmerman-case-witness-evolution.html
"He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
“The black guy was on top,” he said.
Ah so in order to support your fantasies, you have to not only disbelieve Zimmerman, you have to disbelieve the witnesses as well. Gotcha.
No, have you?
First, I didn’t claim any expertise. I expressed my opinion. My opinion is based on five years working with a federal law enforcement agency (specifically time managing the evidence locker) and personal experience with firearms.
No.
First, your use of the term “fantasies” is really rude, even for the IMHO forum.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to read the blog. As I posted, I’d listened to about 1/3rd of the PD inteviews. I’m not interested in reading blogger takes on it all.
As I’ve said, I’d have no problem convicting him of second degree murder, but I’m also not in the jury pool.
I also have no problem if people see things differently.
It appears that my initial question has been answered and I will now go back to ignoring this thread and just wait for the movie to come out.
Good luck in your “discussion”.
So, if Zimmerman’s injuries are not self-inflicted, do you think it is probable that Martin inflicted them? Or maybe you have some “grassy knoll” type of theory about some third party?
It is not a “blogger take”. It is a direct quote from the witness. But nice evasion.
I am relieved that wikipedia agrees with me.
Unknown but seemingly irrelevant.Some unlikely thing is happening all the time all over the world. The law needs to be able to account for the fact that unlikely things do indeed occur, imho
My ability or inability to concoct a scenario w/ a reason for Z to lie w/o it being w/e you think it is, seems somehow irrelevant.
I think the injuries happened during the altercation. I don’t dispute that.
I dispute that they are evidence that Martin was the aggressor. Have you ever tried to hold onto a wild cat that wanted to get away? Does the fact that the cat shreds your arm indicate that the cat was trying to kill you?
More importantly, in my opinion, the injuries are not consistent with the altercation that Zimmerman described.
[HUMOR BECAUSE I CAN’T RESIST]After more thought, if it happened the way that Zimmerman claims and he did line up the pistol to make that shot, his face would have been right behind the pistol and he probably bonked himself in the nose with it…those two tiny marks on the bridge of his nose are probably from where the top of the hammer bounced off his skull. Is there a sight on that model? The sight bouncing off sounds better, don’t you think?[/HUMOR]
You linked to a blog that claims to have quoted from audio/video tapes. So, yes that is second hand (how do I know his quotes are accurate and in context?) I’m not going to chase down all of the blogger’s links.
[HUMOR]Because, I’m off to start a blog of my own about how Zimmerman actually bounced his pistol off his skull and was too embarrassed to admit it, so made up this whole story about having his head bashed in. What do you think of the theme “If the marks don’t fit, you must acquit!”
That should be great link bait, thanks![/HUMOR]
that’s not at all my understanding. I have heard tell that if a juror decides the defendant is lying that the juror is free to disregard or dismiss as much of that testimony as the juror sees fit.
imho that’s an issue which could have in impact and is therefore relevant. ymmv
Of course I may be wrong too. Maybe jurors HAVE to believe testimony that they think is a deceptive falsehood. IANAL
Or if it’s possible that he’s lying but did not fulfill the criteria of second degree murder.
LOL. ; ) I think you may be ascribing a little more influence to your MB posts than they are due.
Also, I think that the prosecution gets a shot at this whole affair at some point in the process.
Please cite the evidence that says Zimmerman was the “aggressor”. Then show how in the world the prosecution can beyond reasonable doubt prove it.
Also, your “wild cat” analogy - do you really think Martin was “trying to get away” while sitting on top of Zimmerman and inflicting those injuries? Do you really think that you could possibly get 6 people on the jury to buy that story?
You can also close your eyes, cover your ears and hum loudly.
If you prefer an MSM source - same quote.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Unknown but seemingly irrelevant.Some unlikely thing is happening all the time all over the world. The law needs to be able to account for the fact that unlikely things do indeed occur, imho
[/quote]
The notion that an unlikely event is most likely to be untrue is the cornerstone of circumstantial evidence. So it is not irrelevant at all. Especially when taken in totality with all the other unlikely claims that go along with it.
To believe that Zimmerman got off a perfectly straight shot from the position he said he was in is like believing that fingerprints left on a murder weapon belonged to someone who coincidentally happened to have the same prints as a defendant. Is this impossible? No. Is it implausible? Yes. Implausible claims can and should be rejected by a jury when there no evidence to support them (like the existence of a twin brother who had motive and opportunity).
Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin.
I’d probably need about 6 years of schooling to do that and I really would jump right on that except that I’m busy setting up my new blog right now.
Yes
Without a video to that effect, this is a disputed event (in my opinion).
I promise. Just as soon as I’m finished setting up my blog, I’ll jump right on that law degree so I can answer your question.
And you think that makes him the “aggressor”?
I see. Even with a video - it could be faked, right? Like the Moon landings. You probably dispute that as well.
You posted: “Please cite the evidence that says Zimmerman was the “aggressor”.”
I quoted that post, then responded: “Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin.”
So, yes, I do think that Zimmerman shooting Martin is a sign of aggression. – Remember, “Self Defense” is a justified aggression. It is not an accidental or even negligent (is there such a thing?) shooting.
Do you have video of the pummeling? That would go great on my blog! Can I get a link to it?
How did you know I think the moon landing was fake? Have you been reading my “The Moon Landing Was Faked!” blog? Well, you’ll never find my “How Diet Coke is Being Used to Control the World Oil Supply!” blog… so I guess that I’m still relatively safe.
No, the shot is not evidence of Zimmerman being an “aggressor”. At least not in any legal sense. The shot is the end of the incident, the “aggressor” part addresses the beginning of it. Any other evidence?
Enkel,
Now you see what we’ve been putting up with?
Bingo.
From your cite -
If the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving it. Nothing about likelihood.
So, to follow up your example, the prosecution will have to prove that Zimmerman could not have shot Martin from the position he claims to, not simply that it’s unlikely.
Probabilities can be used, but must be used very carefully. Say, for example, it’s a one in a million chance of something happening. That means it’s happened to 7000 people currently alive. Is it beyond the realm of plausibility that it happened to the person in front of you, especially if it is consistent with the evidence? The answer is no, obviously.
And yet, one in a million is often used as shorthand for something that can’t happen, or is shockingly rare. This is why the simple fact of something being unlikely must not be considered proof it didn’t happen, when the standard is beyond reasonable doubt.
Here is a famous (in the UK) case of someone wrongfully convicted of murder because it was “unlikely” it could have happened the way she said. The whole wiki article is worth reading to see why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable when trying to prove something.
ETA There’s all sorts of interesting psychological reasons people don’t grasp probabilities intuitively. I can find some links to that if anyone’s interested.
Sorry, I’ve shown it to be wrong with facts. You know, those things you really, really hate, but haven’t found a way to get round yet.