It’s certainly unfortunate, and if it was deliberate, unethical.
I look forward to you applying the same scrutiny and invective to the prosecutions many and varied attempts to bend and break the evidence rules.
This presumes that we must first accept Zimmerman’s claim that Martin hit him. If Zimmerman doesn’t testify, then to the jury, this claim is nonexistent. So they will have to interpret the autopsy evidence without assuming Martin caused Zimmerman’s injuries.
Murder victims die everyday with no injuries to their body except for the injury that killed them. Should we presume that all these people are assailants in an attack that led to their lawful deaths? Why would we do that? If someone walked into my office right now and put a bullet in my head, there wouldn’t be a scratch on me. And? Does that suggest I wasn’t murdered?
It’s equally consistent with murder. A single shot fired means only that. A single shot fired.
And if someone walked up on me and fired a gun at my head, they could very well be in close contact with me. I might even be facing them when they shoot me. And? So what? This doesn’t mean anything. There is no rule that says murder requires someone be far away from their victim.
The defense can not use the NEN call as evidence for Zimmerman unless he takes the stand and authenticates it. Without him vouching for it, it constitutes hearsay and thus is inadmissible for the defense.
Zimmerman’s holster is one the biggest problems for his defense. It’s placement on his rear hip underscores the implausibility of his story. Aside from that problem, there is no evidence that his pistol was holstered that exists outside of his testimony.
This inference is significantly different than the inference that Martin caused Zimmerman’s injuries. Yes the defense can put forth evidence that sometime between X time and Y time, Zimmerman was involved in some kind of incident that resulted in him being mildly injured. But they have no evidence (at least in discovery) that Martin caused those injuries.
So, not guilty.
Yes, they do - the fact that no-one else could have caused them. That is not proof, but it is evidence. Again, you seem unable to grasp the difference between those things.
It’s embarrassing that you think this could be a viable defense strategy.
And this is precious too. Whether or not a person can be in reasonable fear of imminent harm given Zimmerman’s injuries is not the question of importance. The question is was he in reasonable fear. If he wasn’t, and the prosecution can show that he wasn’t, then a psychologist’s assessment of what is theoretically possible becomes completely moot.
So what else you got?
That’s fine if you believe this. Just don’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen. You were wrong about his arrest and you wrong about him getting immunity. You very well well might be wrong about this too.
Your “fact” is false. Zimmerman could have injured himself. There is just as much evidence for that as there is for the idea that Martin injured him.
How do you think the prosecution can show that Zimmerman wasn’t reasonably in fear for his life?
Is this what the state must prove,
or do they have to prove that a “reasonable person” wouldn’t be in fear for their life beyond a reasonable doubt?
CMC fnord!
The flaw in this is that the prosecution cannot show that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear, at least based on the evidence to date. All the ways that you have been trying to push for Zimmerman’s guilty seem to start with the presumption of his guilt. Reasonable doubt remains about all of it, your protestations nothwithstanding.
Carrying a legal handgun, for example, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of malice or ill will. Especially not when the handgun is tucked away in a holster instead of in the hand of the person supposedly intending to commit murder. And again, if Zimmerman had actually intended to murder Martin, he would have been ready to shoot, and therefore Martin would not have had the opportunity to injure Zimmerman in the ways he did.
Not to mention that the idea that Zimmerman intended murder all along is contradicted by the circumstances of the recorded calls for help. If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin, what took him so long? And so, a reasonable juror will see the doubtfullness of the scenario pushed by the prosecution, of murder with malice, and we have an acquittal.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope. If he could have been in reasonable fear, the prosecution haven’t disproved it. They must prove he was not, not that he might not have been. If the defence can show he might have been, they win.
Nope. We have witnesses that saw Martin beating him, and none that saw him hitting himself, quite apart from the fact that there was no time for him to inflict the injuries - the police were there seconds after the shooting.
As for saying I’m wrong about the arrest or the immunity, you have (unsurprisingly) misrepresented me again. I’ve repeatedly said I’m not certain he would win an immunity hearing - indeed, it’s my opinion they’ve chosen to go to trial so that, when they win, it looks better for a future immunity hearing. As for the arrest, if he does gain immunity, the arrest will have been wrong. It’s as simple as that.
But that would require proving his innocence, and it makes sense to get the trial, without that burden of proof, out of they way first.
They can prove he provoked an attack against Martin, thus disqualifying himself from the SYG provision of self-defense. They can prove this by describing the circumstantial evidence plus witness testimony ("Dee Dee) that will allow the jury to infer Zimmerman went after the kid with ill will and attempted to unlawfully detain him.
Without SYG, Zimmerman was legally required to retreat or use nonlethal means of defending himself unless he was met with such overwhelming and imminent violence that retreat or nonlethal means were impossible. The prosecution can point to Martin’s body to show he had no signs of a defensive struggle on him. He was practically blemish free. In Zimmerman’s statement(s) he never said he tried to fight back or run away, and in fact Zimmerman confessed to tackling the victim after Martin “gave up”. Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 40-lbs and the kid was unarmed. It is not evident in the EMT report that the paramedics referred him to emergency care.
All evidence points away from Zimmerman having any reasonable fear of the kid.
And then finally, the prosecution has multiple expert witnesses who exclude Zimmerman as the person screaming for help on the 911 audio. Multiple earwitnesses identified a boy as the screamer. The state also has Zimmerman, on tape, denying he was the voice who was yelling. There is no plausible way Zimmerman could possibly have been in reasonable fear of immininent harm if the person supposedly harming him was simultaneously pleading for help desperately.
Overwhelming and imminent violence such as having someone on top of you bashing your head against the ground? Prove that didn’t happen to him.
Oh, you can’t.
He’s not guilty, no matter how much you try to spin the law or lie about the facts. Even if we accept your distortions as true, he’s still not guilty of murder.
The jury may draw inferences from the evidence they are presented with. The only reasonable inference from Zimmerman’s injuries, Martin’s autopsy report, and the statements of witnesses is that Martin caused the injuries.
Do you believe that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman injured himself after the shooting?
That depends: is the shooter injured? Do witnesses report the alleged victim atop the shooter?
Again, reasonable inferences. If you want someone to be dead, you shoot them more than once. If you want someone to stop attacking you, you shoot until they stop attacking you. This isn’t ironclad proof of anything, but it supports the self-defense claim. And your idea that Zimmerman instantly diagnosed the shot as fatal, then jumped atop Martin to restrain him anyway, is humorous.
Murders that are the result of a fearful person fleeing a threatening pursuer, as you allege
You allege that the murder is the end result of a murder-bent Zimmerman chasing down a fearful Martin, who wished only to escape his pursuer. Why would Martin stop fleeing and approach Zimmerman closely, if this was the case? He might do so if he planned to beat Zimmerman, as the evidence suggests, but why else?
Are the NEN records of the number the call was placed from, and when it ended, hearsay as well? That’s all that you’d need for this point: a timestamp.
It’s not, actually. I happen to carry a very similar pistol to Zimmerman’s (a Taurus PT140, a bit bigger than his but in the same class of sub-compact semiautos), and I carry it the same place he did: just behind the right hip, in an inside-the-waistband holster (my holster is a bit nicer than his, though). To boot, I’m a bit chunky like Zimmerman (he was 5’ 7", 204, if I recall, I’m 5’ 10", 207). As the human torso is ovoid and not a cube, you can draw from that position whilst on your back, I assure you.
Reasonable inference. Unless the state can prove that Zimmerman caused his own injuries. How might that work?
The state of Florida laughs at this as it points to Zimmerman’s uncontested murder charge.
They don’t have to.
None of these are reasonable inferences to make in a murder trial. Zimmerman didn’t need multiple bullets to kill Martin.
No matter how you spin it, the truth damns Zimmerman. He claims he didn’t know the kid had been shot, but he grabbed him anyway. That’s battery. If he did know the kid had been shot, then he lied when he told Serino otherwise AND he still committed battery by grabbing him.
There is no evidence that this happened that exists outside of Zimmerman’s testimony. How many times does this have to be spelled out to yall?
How would you get a location from a timestamp? The NEN call ended 2 minutes before the two players encountered each other, so even if Zimmerman was near the T when the call ended, this tells us nothing about where he encountered Martin.
How would Martin see the gun when Zimmerman was supposedly lying on top of it? In the dark?
And how could Zimmerman have put Martin in a wrist lock with the very same arm he allegedly used to draw the gun from a holster he was lying on top of? The story doesn’t make sense, and I politely ask that when you respond to this post, you shield us from the crazy mental gymnastics you’ve got going in your head, making you believe this nonsense. Crazy like that is contagious.
The prosecution might make that argument but I’m not sure how they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In what way did Zimmerman provoke Martin?
If I were the defense I’d argue that it was impossible for my client to retreat while he was on the ground with Martin on top of him during the assault. What does Martin’s body being blemish free demonstrate? It shows that Martin completely overwhelmed Zimmerman who was unable to fend his attacker off without resorting to deadly force.
Reasonable doubt I think exists.
Nonsense. He was acting in self defence - unless you have evidence than Martin, after being shot, clearly communicated to Zimmerman that he was no longer a threat. Once again, you are mistaken about the law.
Why on earth should he stop trying to prevent Martin from causing him further injury?
Again nonsense. We know that Martin was at the house he was staying at, then came back to the place where the shooting occurred. We know that, had he chosen to, he could have entered that house, and remained in safety. Instead, he returned to Zimmerman, punched him (for whatever reason), and continued to attack him. We know all this from evidence released by the prosecution.
If you were walking down a dark street and a truck started creeping behind you, would you be concerned? Afraid? If you ran away from this truck because you were afraid (which is a reasonable response) and a great big hunk of a man came barreling out to chase after you, would you not be afraid some more? Of course you would. And if this guy seemed intent on not letting you get away from him, what would be your first impulse if he caught up with you without ever identifying himself or explaining his conduct? Wouldn’t it be to physically protect yourself, since running proved ineffective?
Of all the things the prosecution will have to prove, provocation is the easiest. Even O’Mara has conceded this by taking SYG off the table. Zimmerman confessed that the kid was running away from him; what makes most people run away from things if not fear? Deedee also will testify that Martin was afraid of the creepy guy following him. So we can infer that Zimmerman provoked Martin to fear for his safety. I mean, Jesus. This is not even 2+2 levels of difficult.
The defense can’t argue this unless Zimmerman takes the stand. And if you think it’s a sure thing this will happen, you’re crazy. If Zimmerman takes the stand, the prosecution is going to eviscerate him. The state knows this, the defense knows this, and even Zimmerman knows it deep down inside his stupid self. He will not stand up to a cross-examination. We know this because he couldn’t last 5 minutes on Hannity without contradicting himself and making himself look horrible.
It means the same thing it would mean if the cops found a dead gunshot victim in the middle of an alley with no witnesses in sight. The absence of defensive wounds suggests the victim was not in a struggle with someone who’d been trying to protect themselves using reflexive strategies like scratching, biting, blocking, and kicking. We have no evidence that the kid laid a finger on Zimmerman that exists outside of Zimmerman’s own claims. Defensive wounds would be some evidence of that, as would be DNA evidence. *Neither exist.
*
Would you infer the same thing if we were talking about random dead gunshot victim in the middle of an alley, whose body lacks telltale signs of a struggle? If not, you’re biased towards Zimmerman’s account.
How will you show that fear when we know that Martin returned from his house to Zimmerman? Deedee said he was not running, if you recall. Martin was at his house, and Zimmerman could not see him. By what standard do you consider his attempt to get away unsuccessful?
Oh, and you know well why SYG has been taken off the table. It’s because it’s irrelevant to this case, as there is no claim that Zimmerman was standing his ground. The claim is that he defended himself - they are not the same thing.
I thought we’d cleared all this up months ago. There is nothing wrong with following someone, on foot or in a vehicle, and approaching them, and asking them what they are doing. It does not constitute a threat. If the other person is scared, tough. Doesn’t give them the right to attack.
So, who injured Zimmerman? Who was seen on top of him? If you want to claim that Martin did not, in fact, attack Zimmerman you need to account for the injuries. All you’ve done so far is make the ridiculous, unsupported claim that he did it himself.
Noting that his account matches the physical and witness evidence isn’t bias. Your constant ignoring of the fact that it matches is. We know Zimmerman was attacked, and we know Martin attacked someone - he has an injury to his had that showed that. We know they were fighting, we have witnesses. We know Martin said he was by his house, and we know Zimmerman had stopped following him. All these are shown by either witness or physical evidence.
Why did Martin come back?
I know you probably won’t answer the questions, but they are the questions the prosecution will have to answer. Unlike you, they will not be allowed to repeat nonsense, and they will have to answer questions on it.