Because we do not know exactly the nature of the struggle and what it involved, and because things do not unfold with perfect neatness the way we would like.
I have no basis for believing that this is what occurred, so I can’t answer.
Cool. Then don’t post on this thread - post on the other one.
And I expect some surprises from defense. For one thing, there is the location data from cell tower triangulation that has not been introduced yet.
My own opinion is not that it Martin had his gun drawn from the outset. I think the more likely scenario is the two questions, Martin turns away and brushes George off, George tries in some way to physically stop him, Martin responds physically, and at some point after that but well before the final seconds the gun came out.
And what would this show?
You claim to know what it involved: Martin screaming for help while fighting for the gun, a fight Zimmerman won, at which time he shot Martin. Thus, the fight for the gun lasted at least as long as the screams for help.
And yet, there’s no evidence of a fight for a gun, and evidence that one didn’t occur: Zimmerman’s wound-free hands, and Martin’s lack of power burns or a cut from the slide on his hands, for instance. That doesn’t bother you at all?
You have no basis for believing that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face at some point? Or that Zimmerman approached Martin with gun drawn?
Don’t forget the run back to the T, then back south to where the shooting occured.
Would show where Martin was and where Zimmerman was, or at least where their phones were, minute to minute. Depending on the number of overlapping cell towers (this was urban environment, so there are quite a few I am sure) that can be pretty accurate.
The State of Florida also says -
*FLORIDA 790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons. -
(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—The Legislature finds as a matter of public policy and fact that it is necessary to promote firearms safety and to curb and prevent the use of firearms and other weapons in crime and by incompetent persons without prohibiting the lawful use in defense of life, home, and property, and the use by United States or state military organizations, and as otherwise now authorized by law, including the right to use and own firearms for target practice and marksmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, and lawful hunting and other lawful purposes.
(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:
(g) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state, or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or trap shooting, while at or going to or from shooting practice; or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for modern or antique firearms collecting, while such members are at or going to or from their collectors’ gun shows, conventions, or exhibits;
(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
(l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person’s manual possession;
(m) A person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a secure wrapper, concealed or otherwise, from the place of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business;
(n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;
(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE. -
Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012*.
Open carry is legal in FLA with restrictions. Hunters and skeet shooters “open carry” on a regular basis.
A firearm would be considered concealed if it’s hidden from view underneath a shirt or jacket whether it was tucked into the waist band, or secured in a holster inside or outside the waistband.
Adult sized juvenile delinquent who likes to fight. How’s that.
So how many people have you shot? Ever shoot a gun that was close to your face? I suspect it would surprise you.
again, who wears a holster on their backside while driving?
If Martin is at the T then who is following whom? It appears that Zimmerman avoided turning south and following him yet Martin turns up at that location.
Now you’re just driving around with the goal post in your truck bed. “Right by” in this instance was qualified as the reason he didn’t need to run anymore. You’re basing opinion on the idea that anything is possible therefore the most unlikely thing DID occur.
Again, you’re basing your opinion on the idea that anything is possible therefore the most unlikely thing DID occur. We already have Zimmerman’s testimony as to what happened. You may not like it and think every bit of it is a lie but the surrounding evidence is consistent with it. We KNOW Martin was on top of him assaulting him. It’s more likely that the person saying “get off” a little bit is the person trying to fend off an assault and away from the attacker.
It’s worn above the hip. Otherwise it would be jamming you in the back while sitting.
There is no indication Zimmerman was afraid to go back to his truck. It makes sense that he’s watching the back of the houses from the top of the T because that’s the direction Martin ran. He also has a commanding view of his truck and the arriving police.
You’re barking if you think the injuries were minimal or that someone on top of another in a beating is not a serious problem. There is also no indication from the phone call that Martin was going to stop. I’d like to see you make that statement after 38 seconds of such a beating.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense. The person responsible for confronting and assaulting someone was Martin.
He gets a free pass if he’s defending himself from a punk who likes to beat people up. Zimmerman had no opportunity to deescalate someone who followed him and sucker punched him.
How many times do I have to say that I have a CHL. Believe it or not I have an outside the waistband holster on RIGHT NOW with my polo shirt over it. And that’s concealed.
I also have an IWB holster that I use if I’m not wearing an untucked shirt.
Open carry is just as illegal in Texas as Florida.
And this is relevant…how, exactly? The only time period and the only location(s) that have any relevance is from the start of the NEN call, when George says he saw Martin near 1450 Retreat View Circle and followed him up to the cut-through on Twin Trees.
The defense could solve a lot of problems if they gave a minute-by-minute verification of where George was while on the NEN call. There’s no way Martin has time to move the way George said he moved, based on where George said he was during the call…
You have been discussing this stuff for how long? And you’re not aware of the question of whether Martin went to his dad’s fiancee’s house and then doubled back? Or whether Zimmerman “chased him” there? If the cell phone positioning info is accurate enough, it would certainly answer a lot of questions.
It’s the job of the prosecution to introduce evidence of where GZ was, or couldn’t have been, during this incident and the prosecution’s witnesses have been more helpful to the defense than to making the prosecutions case of 2nd degree murder.
I think all they can prove is that Ttrayvon was out of cell tower range, which essentially means that he didn’t come straight home from the 7-11, as DD essentially claimed. If parts of her story are questionable, all of her story might be questionable. The ping logs might only be good for impeachment purposes.
Did anyone else find it disturbing or unbelievable that TM’s mom was unaware of what she would be hearing on the 9-1-1 tape that she and her friends would listen to in the Sanford Mayor’s office? SURPRISE - that’s your son crying out for help. Would you like a drink of water or perhaps a chair? I find it reasonable to assume that the people in that room knew exactly why they were there and what they were about to hear. “Someone” would have prepared them for what was on the recording.
The fact that she heard the tape in the Mayor’s office and not at a police station, or State Attorney’s office is somewhat odd and suggests that the prosecution of GZ began with a political decision instead of based on the actual evidence (as opposed to the nonsense published by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and the lynch mob-types) available to the State.
Maybe. I am not sure if triangulation data is recorded/kept for a while. Will see I guess.
Moving on to today’s testimony…
The defense has called a series of witnesses today largely to testify that they believe the screams on the 9-1-1 call were from George Zimmerman. Friends and coworkers of Zimmerman have been called who claim to be familiar with his voice previously.
We heard testimony from prosecution witnesses earlier but some of them (*e.g.*the neighbors) did not claim much familiarity with Zimmerman’s voice prior to the incident.
The defense made the point, courtesy of the prosecution’s witness, that persons already familiar with a voice are better capable of identifying that voice.
The prosecution did have the testimony of Rachel Jeantel and Trayvon Martin’s family members saying the screams were Martin’s but the state did not call others who claimed prior familiarity with Martin’s voice to make the same claim. Perhaps another missed opportunity by the prosecution side.
What the defense is obviously doing is sneaking in character witnesses under the cover of recognizing the screams. Pretty clever of them.
The prosecution is irritating the hell out of the jury by making them listen to the whole NEN call repeatedly, and the whole Lauer 911 call repeatedly. I bet Bernie thinks it is beneficial to him. I think he is mistaken.
Now Bernie is yelling at the little old lady 
The prosecution is hilariously inept.
Leeann Benjamin testimony has been really good for George. She let the jury know he’s worked on a political campaign and mentored teen kids. She also identified his voice on the 911 call.
She also mentioned the delayed arrest by the special prosecutor.
Paraphrasing the witness on the stand right now: “De La Rionda must have ill-will and depraved mind, he keeps yelling obscenities at me!”