No it isn’t. Acting in self-defense is not an attack. You should know this by now.
If Zimmerman attacked Martin first, with his gun, then how did Martin inflict the injuries on Zimmerman? Since Martin was shot only once, and since that one shot proved almost immediately fatal, Martin must have inflicted the injuries before Zimmerman fired the one shot. Since there are no other injuries on Martin, there is no evidence of any other attack by Zimmerman. Therefore, the evidence tends to show that Martin attacked first, and that Zimmerman shot him in self-defense. Just like Zimmerman has been saying all along.
Police reports, medical reports, the testimony of witnesses, the 911 transcripts, cell phone records, etc. You know - all the things you don’t want to exist, but do.
You are making your usual mistake. The prosecution has to prove all the relevant elements of its case. The defense does not have to prove innocence.
If the defense casts reasonable doubt on even one of the elements that make up second-degree murder, Zimmerman is not guilty.
So, the prosecution brings up the circumstances, and the defense points out how they back up a claim of self-defense, as well as pointing out that they don’t establish murder.
Criminal defendants are not compelled to take the stand, even in their own defense. The idea that they are going to be convicted if they don’t is a violation of the Constitution. Do you really not know this, or is it more shit you are flinging in hopes that some of it will stick?
or maybe he’s where he SAYS he is which is at his father’s house. If he was hiding close to the T intersection he would have seen and heard Zimmerman the whole time.
the only way this can happen is for Martin to leave the last location he himself stated he was at.
this is the only thing you’ve managed to get right. A fight ensues with no verbal signs that Martin was threatened yet all the evidence shows it was Zimmerman who was assaulted.
there is no evidence that either of these things happened so it’s your imagination at work and nothing else.
You can conjecture an infinite number of things but you need evidence to back it up or it’s vigilante fantasy on your part.
This ground has been covered already. No he was not. His PA referred him to a ENT doctor to be evaluated further. He never was definitively diagnosed with a broken nose.
Or possibly having a paper cut, taking a spill on a concrete surface, or getting his skin caught in his zipper fly. Evidence of a punch would more likely be a bruise on multiple knuckles. Not an isolated scratch.
Actually, if you can cite for Zimmerman’s stains that would be nice. But it’s not important. These stains tell us that they scuffled on the ground and that at one point Martin’s knees came in contact with the ground. How this is supposedly to paint the picture of a killer threat is a mystery to me, though. As an indisputable fact, it’s pretty empty.
Who is witness 45? Was it a person at the scene when the event took place? Or is Witness 45 Zimmerman’s dad? You know, the one who said that he hadn’t heard George yell like that since he was a teenager? You can’t possibly mean this nut, right?
I’m sorry, were you asking for pieces of evidence, or some sort of magic-bullet that proves the case one or the other? Sorry to say, that doesn’t exist.
The location of the phone and flashlight suggests that it was Martin that came to Zimmerman, and not vice-versa. Martin’s lack of injuries from fighting suggests that the fight was not started by Zimmerman, and yet we know that a fight occurred. One thing that might’ve motivated Martin to go to Zimmerman would be to start a fight.
Yes, Zimmerman declined a follow-up, but a medical report with “Diagnosis: nasal bones, close fracture”, and the post-shooting photos, are evidence of a broken nose.
Possibly, sure. Though Zimmerman was clearly struck about the head, and it can’t have been post-shooting.
They (Martin’s pants stains) support both Zimmerman’s and Witness 6’s testimony that Martin was atop Zimmerman. Can they only mean that? No.
Witness 45 is a neighbor of Zimmerman’s. He told the FBI in his interview that he was “110%” sure that the voice crying out for help is Zimmerman’s. Zimmerman’s family agrees, and Martin’s family does not, but I didn’t mention them for the obvious reason of bias.
Again, though, there’s no video or anything like that in this case, just various pieces of evidence that must be fit together into an account of what happened that night. I’ve yet to see a version that accounts for the evidence and meets the standard of reasonable doubt.
So, if your point is that the exculpatory evidence can be explained away by hypotheticals and what-ifs, well, of course it can. That’s true of most any case. The question is, does the evidence suggest guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? And the answer is plainly “no”.
The most important one, the one that really matters, is the fact that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In which case, he’s entitled to defend himself.
If you are correct, Zimmerman was acting both legally and morally when he shot Martin. If one is in a fight, and is in literal pants-wetting terror, and cannot escape (this is a proven fact, by the way - witnesses saw Martin on top), he has a perfect right to shoot and kill the aggressor, regardless of who started the fight - and regardless, even, if Martin first punched in self defence.
Of course, you are demonstrably wrong about Zimmerman chasing Martin, but that’s not hugely relevant. I suspect the defence will show that Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked first, because it simplifies things, but even if they can’t there’s still no crime he committed.
But it is not inarguable fact that he had a broken nose.
Yes it could have, actually. If Zimmerman had time to pose for a head shot while gabbing on the phone, there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have had time to injure himself.
I’ve asked for inarguable facts that are exculpatory for Zimmerman. Some grass stains on Martin’s jeans do not mean anything except that the kid’s jeans came in contact with grass. Since we already know this happened (because Martin was face down after he was shot) it’s meaningless.
Did Witness 45 hear the yelling live, while it took place, as an ear witness? Did he live in proximity to the shooting or did he live all the way back near Zimmerman’s house? It sounds like he is just some person who heard the 911 tape along with the rest of America and then claimed it was his buddy Zimmerman. Why should we put any stock in this person?
Whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is for a jury to decide. If Zimmerman doesn’t take the stand, he will have an uphill fight in convincing anyone he killed in self-defense. If he takes the stand, he will have an uphill fight in convincing the jury he as a nanogram of credibility. Either way, it will be difficult for him.
Perhaps not, but there is evidence that suggests it, and no evidence that suggests he didn’t have one.
In front of witnesses? Possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely.
What you asked for doesn’t exist, then. There’s a sizable amount of evidence that’s exculpatory, and virtually none that’s inculpatory, but all the evidence requires some amount of interpretation and weighing it against other evidence. There’s no reverse-smoking-gun that clears Zimmerman on its face, but merely the product of various pieces of evidence considered together.
He heard it after the fact, but as someone who knows Zimmerman, he’s in a position to evaluate whether the voice was Zimmerman’s.
Note that no eye or earwitness testimony is inarguable. For that matter, what sort of evidence is inarguable?
I’m not so sure the case will even reach the defense phase, it might well end with a motion to dismiss. But, we shall see, I don’t make my living predicting trial outcomes.
except for the eye witness that saw him on top of Martin immediately after the shot was fired. Oh, and there’s the tiny little problem of you MAKING UP A SCENARIO WITH NO EVIDENCE.
It’s not meaningless unless there was another person on top of Zimmerman who got off, ran away and Martin just happened to walk by and sit on his chest for the shooting.
Is that what witness 45 sounds to you? And again you’re basing this on what exactly?
I could have sworn someone mentioned that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t in fear for his life. Too bad he and his lawyer want him to testify even though that’s normally avoided in such trials.
Simply repeating this ad nauseum won’t make it true. He doesn’t have to convince the jury of anything, they are required to presume his innocence. It is for the prosecution, and them alone, to prove he did not kill in self defence.
The only fact you will get is that he shot Martin (or, from Jack Batty the fact that he was carrying a gun, as if that’s evidence of anything), from people who ignore the fact that shooting someone is not, by itself, a crime.
Long story short: the defendant pursued Martin at some length of time, going so far as to exit his truck in the rain to follow after the kid. Who, by the defendant’s own admission, had run away from him. The defendant was armed; the victim was not. The defendant had an agenda (to not let the kid get away); the victim did not. Ear witnesses identified a boy yelling; not a man.
The circumstances suggest that if anyone had a reason to SYG that night, it was the victim who was killed by Zimmerman’s gun. Not Zimmerman.
Other inarguable facts that point to Zimmerman’s guilt:
The desperate yelling for help abruptly ended right when the gun went off. Coincidence? Unlikely if we’re supposed to believe Zimmerman was clueless as to whether he shot the kid.
Zimmerman’s vitals were normal when the paramedics evaluated him minutes after he supposedly experienced the most harrowing experience of his life. Which means there is zero objective evidence that Zimmerman was under duress or extreme fear.
Zimmerman never sought emergency care. According to his medical report the following day, the reason he visited his PA was to get a note okaying him to return to work. He never followed up with a specialist to get his nose checked out. This suggests he knew perfectly well his injuries were unsubstantial and he didn’t want any definitive evidence confirming this.
Zimmerman’s own accounts disagree with each other or other people’s. Even minor shit that should be corroborated by witnesses was contradicted. For example, Zimmerman claims that after he shot the kid, he instructed a witness to help him hold down Martin. He says he told them not to call the cops. But no witness have corroborated this, and in fact, at least one witness says Zimmerman told them to call the cops. Another witness says Zimmerman instructed him to call his wife. But Zimmerman never admitted this. There’s a photo of Zimmerman talking on the phone with someone, but Zimmerman never copped to calling anyone. And neither did he admit to having his picture taken multiple times before being taken away. It is an inarguable fact that Zimmerman credibility is questionable given all of these omissions and inconsistencies.
The blood lines on Zimmerman’s head are not consistent with his head being banged repeatedly against concrete. Unless gravity in Sanford, FL works differently than in does in the rest of the world, that shit should not have been running towards his face in neat dribble lines. There should have been smearing at the least. The fact that the lines run the way they do suggests Zimmerman was not on the ground when he was injured; they suggest he was upright and looking downward.
None of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA was isolated from Martin’s fingernails. There is no objective evidence the kid laid a finger on the guy. Zimmerman’s blood was found under the kid’s hoodie, though. Near the bottom edge.
The bullet holes in Martin’s hoodie and undershirt line up with one another, but do not line up with the hole in his chest. Their placement relative to his wound suggest someone or something was pulling downward on his clothing when was shot. If Zimmerman pulled at the hoodie to hold Martin in place as he took aim with his right hand, this could explain the hole orientation. It could also explain how Z’s blood ended up on the kid’s undershirt.
In his reenactment, Zimmerman said he took care to avoid shooting his left arm. But based on his version of events, his left arm couldn’t have been anywhere close to the line of fire. Martin supposedly had his body draped over his in an elaborate smothering, punching, wrestling conflagration. This suggests Zimmerman’s version of events is a lie. The more parsimonious explanation is what I describe in point 7. It is what fits with the forensic evidence.
The bullet that hit Martin entered at a level front-to-back trajectory. None of the angles you’d expect if he was shot in the configuration Zimmerman claimed he was. The path is more consistent with a shot made with both parties standing upright, facing each other. Witnesses reported seeing Zimmerman standing right when the gun went off. At least one witness says she saw someone standing seconds before the gun went off.
10.. Zimmerman, at his first bond hearing, apologized to Martin’s family and offered up the excuse that he didn’t know that Martin was unarmed. This suggests his behavior would have been different if he’d known the truth. But why? If Martin attacked him unprovoked and put him in fear for his life, whether the kid had been armed or not is immaterial.
What else? Oh yeah, Zimmerman says his first impulse after shooting Martin was to jump on top of the kid and hold him down despite not knowing whether the kid had been shot. I’ve said enough about this already, but not only does it reveal a combative mindset, it reveals a lack of fear. See point 2.
Not inculpatory. Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to exit his truck and look for Martin. As it happens, he reported losing sight of him, and as you know, Martin must have returned toward Zimmerman.
Not inculptatory.
Highly speculative.
Not inarguable, unless you have evidence that the 17-year-old Martin sounded like a boy, or that this can be determined by hearing a scream?
Highly speculative. Why wouldn’t someone stop screaming after firing a gun, and no longer being beaten? I don’t know if you’ve ever fired a short-barreled 9mm, but they are quite loud.
Not inculpatory. There’s no one “correct” way to react to trauma. The Amanda Knox and Lindy Chamberlain cases have demonstrated that quite well.
Highly speculative; or Zimmerman’s just tough, or didn’t want to pay for a specialist, or miss work, or any other reason.
This is normal and to be expected after this sort of incident. I wrote about it in the thread earlier, and linked to articles. If Zimmerman had perfect recall of the moments right before, during, and after his intense stress, it would be highly unusual.
Extremely speculative, and not inculpatory. You don’t know how long Zimmerman was bleeding while on his back, or whether blood was wiped away before the photos were taken.
Seriously? They didn’t look for DNA, so it must not have been there?
Not inculpatory, as it also suggests clothing moving around during a struggle.
Again, this is normal and expected in this circumstances.
It’s also consistent with Zimmerman raising the pistol slightly, and Martin being on top of him.
Emily Post doesn’t write Rules for Speaking To The Family Of The Person You Shot In Self Defense. Who knows what you should say? I’m sure he didn’t want to seem cold, nor did he want to admit wrongdoing. There’s no “correct” way to handle that.
Human Action, just responding “not inculpatory” is weak and reveals the emptiness of your position. If Zimmerman confessed to murder tomorrow, I have a feeling you’d say that’s “not inculpatory”. Because he could be lying. Or mistaken. Or something other than guiltier than a cooterbug.
Yeah, it’s a true. A confession could be false. And a person’s vitals could somehow be normal despite them just having their ass kicked by an all-powerful thug. And zero blood/DNA evidence under someone’s fingernails could mean the state lab was not looking for blood/DNA. And a yell that ends at the exact moment a lethal bullet is fired into someone’s chest could have been uttered by the person who fired the letal bullet rather than the one who was shot.
How many coulds can a reasonable person accept, though. You seem to have a boundless limit, but most people do not. Most people start smelling fish after the second or third implausibility is trotted out.
The fact remains that Zimmerman has been charged with murder, has waived immunity, and will be tried in less than 10 business days. I keep waiting for it to dawn on yall that parties much more important than us have already decided there a damn good reason to believe Zimmerman committed murder. You insist that all the stuff I’ve outlined is “not inculpatory”, but why are you telling me this? Lol. Tell it to Corey and friends. Clearly they think you are wrong. All I’m essentially trying to do is walk you through what most likely is their reasoning.
Why did Trayvon leave the area of his house instead of simply entering it. Done. By his own admission he had lost sight of Zimmerman and was next to his house. If he was near the T intersection hiding he would have seen AND heard Zimmerman the whole time.
No it’s not coincidence, it’s logical. Why would he continue to yell if Martin stopped beating him.
When did they get there, what were his vitals and what where they suppose to be? This is beyond a fishing expedition.
why would he need to seek emergency care? The shot was fired over a fight for the gun which followed a head slamming incident. Do you not understand the concept of being in fear for your life? How many times does someone have to slam your head on cement before you think they mean business?
So? You can’t remember jack from this thread. You’ve been repeatedly told how the legal system works and it just rolls off you.
Again, so? How is it remotely possible to recall everything that happened and what is the relevance of not vomiting up every second of what happened? He probably scratched his ass and rubbed his eyes. Should that be included?
I don’t know what planet you live on but the blood runs down his skull from different sides of his head downward in jagged lines like it’s suppose to.
There is smearing at the points of impact. From there on it runs according to the laws of gravity as he sits there after the assault.
cite that it was looked for in the first place.
Sooooooo…. you’re suggesting that Martin’s clothing shifted during a fight. OK
WTH? He’s trying to hold off Martin. Was his left arm detached during the encounter?
cite. I’m not aware of any witnesses who saw them when the shot was taken.
Zimmerman never apologized to Martin’s family.
It reveals a desire to survive a beating by someone who may have been armed. See your point #10.
No, it simply means that your claim is irrelevant to the question of Zimmerman’s guilt, and therefore not worth supporting or refuting.
Yes, if Zimmerman confessed tomorrow after over a year of maintaining that he committed no crime, I’d be dubious. Confessions without corroborating evidence shouldn’t be accepted anyway.
However, if he confesses and neither he nor his legal team claim self defence at trial, they might be able to get a murder conviction.
The only thing among them that’s implausible, conveniently, is the confession one. One would fully expect him to stop screaming when the threat is no longer present, and frankly one would expect someone who’s just been shot to continue screaming. You do remember that Martin did not die instantly, yes?
The others have been repeatedly dealt with, but the answer to your question is that a reasonable person will accept that, no matter how implausible something or things are, that doesn’t make them impossible, and so, when required to determine beyond reasonable doubt that they did not happen, they will require actual evidence, not speculation.
Your faith in the legal system is touching. Hopefully it will remain as strong when Zimmerman is acquitted, and you will take back all your lies about him. Because, after all, more important people than you will have decided it.
Er…the only item I addressed with only the phrase “not inculpatory” was “The defendant was armed; the victim was not”, because that item was unworthy of further comment. It’s beyond ridiculous to suggest that “The defendant was armed; the victim was not” is evidence of Zimmerman’s being guilty of murder. As I’m sure you’re aware, unarmed people can and do place others in reasonable fear for their lives, and Zimmerman’s being armed doesn’t remove his right to self defense.
No, a confession is inculpatory.
This is just speculation. Do you know how long it was before his vitals were checked? Do you know what a typical person’s vitals should have been after that time? Do you know if some people maintain a lower heart rate and such than others in the face of extreme stress? Your “inarguable facts” are mere speculation.
Do you have evidence that they were? Otherwise, it’s more speculation.
It’s at least as likely as the person who was shot stopping their scream.
You haven’t demonstrated any implausibility in the defense’s account, thought. I’d also point out the double-standard you’re employing: grass stains on the knees of Martin’s pants mean nothing, they were wrestling around. But the holes in Martin’s clothes from the bullet don’t match the wound when his body is laid out on a slab? Well, that’s proof that Zimmerman was yanking on Martin’s shirt! You’re employing the reverse of reasonable doubt.
If what you’ve listed is all they’ve got, Zimmerman has nothing to worry about.
I can’t see any reason for someone taking off running when someone’s parked in a vehicle, on the phone. There’s nothing scary about that. I would have tapped on the window, and asked him what he was up to. The logical explanation is that Trayvon was casing houses to break into. After all, he was in a diversion program, in lieu of jail, having kiddie porn is a felony, participating in the beating of a homeless man is a felony, and that’s just what is known. Not wanting to be reported, Trayvon just took off, and when he saw Zimmerman walking back to his vehicle, not realizing the cops would arrive at any moment, unlike George, who knew they could, decided to main or kill him, to eliminate a witness. IMO.
