Exactly,
And even if it should be brought into question (with any straight face) to the jurors, the ‘advantage’ you speak of is more of a disadvantage based on how Martin supports believe the events actually unfolded.
The comments that forty lbs is some type of massive advantage are laughable.
I cant wait for O’Mara to argue that being a tall ectomorph is an advantage in a fight against a stocky, armed ex-bouncer.
There’s a saying among people who enjoy combat sports that goes, "A good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un.
Take 2 professional fighters who have been in the game for the same time and fight a similar kind of fight, and if one is 40lb heavier, only people who like backing the underdog are going to bet on the smaller fella.
When you have 2 distinctly less-than professional fighters, if the smaller fella lands the first blow and doesn’t totally incapacitate his opponent, once they get up close and personal that weight disadvantage of the smaller person is going to come right into play… if the larger person actually decides to fight back and doesn’t just allow his opponent to ragdoll him.
It’s not like Z was 40lb+ heavier and unhealthily overweight, as can clearly be seen in his reenactment vid. The height difference between the 2 was marginal, but the weight difference is not something that should be overlooked when raising the question of how easy it would have been for TM to control Z in the way Z claims.
I suspect he will argue that a younger, fitter, taller football player had the advantage.
An argument supported by witness evidence that shows Martin winning the fight, and the respective injuries to the two of them.
Younger= lack of experience.
Fitter? Looks to me like Z had made significant efforts to take control of his weight problem, if his arrest photos in 2005 are anything to go by. I’d be interested to know when Z began and finished his stint in club security.
Taller is only useful if you know what to do with your height advantage. Check how many tall fighters Mike Tyson disposed of.
As for him being a footballer, do you have any evidence he was still playing regularly? I thought he was supposed to have been hooked on the wacky baccy and spiraling downwards?
Look, let’s get this straight - being on top in a struggle does NOT equate to being in a guaranteed winning position and it certainly doesn’t mean you were the aggressor.
Wow, an actual argument, well done. I think you can make arguments for either one being, on paper, the better fighter - I was suggesting that O’Mara would use the argument I put forward, and suggesting that there’s evidence he can use to back it up. You’ve got an argument, and a suggestion of where to find evidence for it.
That said, an argument that can go both ways works in Zimmerman’s favour, as it always must for the defendant.
What matters is if he was winning sufficiently to put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of death or serious injury at the time the shot was fired, and, if you can prove Martin was the aggressor, if he was preventing Zimmerman from leaving the fight. As there is evidence that both of those things are true, it doesn’t matter if he’d have won the fight in the end, absent the gun, or if he started it.
He won’t have to.
Okay. Let’s forget the court case for a moment. If testimony was to come to light that Z, during his stint as a bouncer, was quite capaple of handling unruly customers by himself, and wasn’t exactly a wallflower when it came to getting involved, would you dismiss it as hearsay and continue to believe the fight started as described, or would you revise your opinions on his honesty?
Don’t the jury first have to be convinced that he was actually in that situation before they start deciding if he was right to shoot?
Are you thinking Z’s going to see the light and cop a plea?
LOL.
They don’t care.
Of course they will feed you the bull that the law says that that doesn’t matter.
So the prosecution will point out the weight disparity between the two and will argue that if they were mixed martial arts fighters, Martin would have been outclassed by Zimmerman by almost 3 weight divisions, and the defense will not contest the point?
Okay.
LOL.
This is entertaining…
If they run with the narrative given that TM declared his intent to kill Z and then reached for Z’s gun, I don’t see why weight divisions would matter in the slightest.
First they’d have to be convinced that this was even possible, considering the less-than optimal lighting conditions and the fact that Z’s gun was holstered where TM could only see it if he’d had x-ray eyes.
Then, did TM whisper the words in Z’s ear or did he have to raise his voice to be heard above Z’s screams of terror? Maybe the FBI’s audio experts can determine whether or not that actually happened?
It’s amazing how Z’s memory is perfect when it comes to remembering all the little details that prove TM’s hostility, but when it comes to explaining contradictions in his testimony, it all goes fuzzy again.
Sure, but they’re really being asked if Z was wrong to shoot. So it’s a little different. The jury has to be sure that Z was wrong to shoot before they vote t convict.
If he was clinging to TM’s hoody, preventing him from pulling away from the conflict, would he be deemed wrong to shoot?
Say a forensics expert declared that based on the evidence of both party’s clothing, they couldn’t possibly have been on the wet grass for more than 5 seconds, and that if TM’s knees had been pressing into the ground any longer than that, it would have been clearly obvious?
Would the jury be right to dismiss the significance of such information and instead choose to believe Z’s version of events?
You watch too much CSI.
If there’s some data which shows that Z committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should choose to convict.
Dee Dee is not specific about the time elapsed, but there is no reason to conclude that they were not yet on the ground (which it has been established that they were). According to her description of the call, she heard Martin confront Zimmerman, then Zimmerman answered Martin, then Dee Dee spent an unspecified period of time yelling to Martin, then she heard a bump “like someone hitting something”. Then she at first says the phone shut off at that point, and later claims she heard “get off, get off”.
Of course, she also claims she could hear grass, and that she “couldn’t hear Trayvon” and “couldn’t know Trayvon”, and then changes her story to say that she could hear Trayvon.
But even with the contradictions and incoherencies, it backs up Zimmerman’s account - it does not contradict it. Dee Dee describes how Martin lost Zimmerman, doubled back, confronted him, and even heard the “bump” where Martin knocked down Zimmerman. And even that she could hear them struggling on the grass (if that is what she meant by saying she could hear the grass or the “grass thing”).
And if you read the transcript, you will note that at first, Dee Dee says that Martin bumped somebody, and then immediately catches herself to change it to say that somebody bumped Martin. And claims that she knew that somebody bumped Martin instead of vice versa because she could “hear the grass”.
Which makes no sense, but Dee Dee does not strike me as a person of great intellectual depth.
At any rate, it is not the case that Dee Dee’s description of the events shows that the phrase was uttered before they were on the ground.
Regards,
Shodan