But not the kind of terror that comes from someone mounting your chest and beating you. Good to know that your keen ears can detect such distinctions.
Considering the very close range the shot was fired at, it’s remarkable that Martin, in your theory, used none of that terror-driven strength to try and pry the gun from Zimmerman or keep it pointed away from himself, for the length of the screams, which would leave tell-tale scratches and bruises on Zimmerman’s hands. It’s also remarkable that neither of Martin’s hands would be close enough to the gun to be burned by the gunpowder if the shot followed such a lengthy struggle for the gun. You dismiss those issues with “things do not unfold with perfect neatness the way we would like”, at the same time you make no allowance whatsoever for Zimmerman being innocent but wrong in some of his recollections. In short, you’re presuming Zimmerman’s guilt and interpreting evidence in that light.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming. It might mean that he wasn’t smothered for that stretch of time (the 911 call didn’t capture the entire incident). It might be that he was never smothered at all.
This is why I’m skeptical of your seeker-of-truth bona fides: you seem to only acknowledge two and only possibilities, that either Zimmerman’s account is 100% accurate, or he’s a murderer. But that’s not the reality of it, because there’s no reason to expect Zimmerman’s account to be 100% accurate, even if he’s innocent. Stress destroys memory. He can be wrong about the timing of the smothering, or even that smothering happened at all, and that doesn’t make him guilty. Only proof of his guilt does that.
That’s not what pohjonen said; he/she said that he’d convict on second-degree murder even though she/he didn’t think Zimmerman was proven guilty, because of what’s “right”, in an act of reverse-jury nullification.
You seem to be saying that you think he has been, or could have been, proven guilty of second-degree murder to the satisfaction of a reasonable jury. Yes?
And that’s a very odd question, because someone other than the speaker (who’d heard the speaker’s voice before, of course) is more likely to be able to accurately identify the voice than the speaker themselves. So what you wrote above is akin to saying “If even Fat George can’t touch his toes, how the hell can this guy touch Fat George’s toes?” It’s actually easier for the non-Zimmerman party to ID the voice as being Zimmerman’s or not than it is for Zimmerman himself, because Zimmerman’s only ever heard his own voice the way it actually sounds on those handful of occasions in life where you hear your voice on a recording.
That all said, that doesn’t mean that the voice is Zimmerman’s; there’s simply no reasonable way to tell. There’s no valid scientific method, and both sides have family members honestly and sincerely claiming that it’s their relative. The only reasonable thing to do is ignore that piece of evidence as neither inculpatory nor exclupatory.
Wouldn’t his hand have to be on the gun or damn near at the moment of the shot? I’m thinking it obviously wasn’t at that point which is why GZ could shoot him.
Not true at all. It’s not the mere fact of inconsistency, it is the exact nature of the inconsistency or story that makes me believe it is very conscious, vs. a “misremembering”. It’s mostly stuff that were it different than he says, he’d be pretty screwed.
He said he was smothered right before the shot. Said it several times and ways. Got his nose rubbed in the unlikelihood of it by Serino and Singleton, who then dropped the ball. Who also pointed out to him how telling the NEN people to have the cops call you leads directly to one conclusion: you do not know where you will be, making it damn near certain you plan to keep looking for Martin. Et cetera.
That’s what it seems to you, but it’s not what is true for me.
And I don’t. Little fumbles here and there, a little meaningless something missing this time, added next time… I don’t even think about it. Like I said, the big stuff is all stuff that totally works for him to undo or cover behavior that would otherwise leave him making friends with his cellie in no time to keep his ass the right size.
Yes, and under the law the jury is legally entitled to consider the defendant’s statements, the statements made which tend to portray his innocence, and valuate them for credibility, and they are entitled to find that the statements are false and offered with consciousness of guilt to escape consequences. And then the jury can add that in as a fact weighing in favor of guilt itself.
So there’s that.
Well, kinda yes and kinda no. You don’t have to toss it unless you are neutral about it. But you can hear it for yourself and add that in to your consideration.
The judge just ruled that yes it is admissible. And Bricker I’d like to gloat a bit, you said the judge’s decision not to allow toxicology in was not reversible error. Yet today Nelson reversed herself and said it was clearly a reversible error to do so.
if you’ve only ever heard B - that is most likely what you will hear - since its the closest you will have in memory - none of these people were brought in ‘blind’ that knew BOTH parties and asked to identify (or if they even recognized it).
They were all brought in to say if it was ‘A’ or ‘B’.
I still want to hear a hypo of what happened, supported by the evidence, that makes Z guilty of either murder two or manslaughter. What happened after he left the truck (step by step), that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that shows his guilt?
And further, if a defendant believes his life is in danger, but his fear was unreasonable, that is manslaughter, not murder two. If we rule that his actions were “depravedly excessive” then that swallows the rule and makes all imperfect self defense cases murder two, which is in direct contradiction of the MPC. In all imperfect self defense cases, the defendant deliberately intends to kill the deceased.
Repeating this won’t make it true. Even the prosecution witnesses have shown you’re wrong here.
The prosecution’s medical experts disagree with you.
So, we don’t know when it happened? That means it’s consistent with Zimmerman’s testimony, and does not show him to be a liar.
So, we don’t know when it happened? That means it’s consistent with Zimmerman’s testimony, and does not show him to be a liar.
Nothing else comes immediately to mind as being supported by the evidence, especially to the exclusion of other reasonable possibilities. Or the evidence refutes it:
Fortunately, your gut feelings, in the absence of actual evidence, can’t be used to determine his guilt. Also fortunately, for Zimmerman at least, there was testimony at the trial from yet another expert that Martin could have been alive for a few minutes after being shot. It is, IMHO, reasonable to infer from evidence that he could have been alive that he could have been alive.
So, we don’t know when it happened? That means it’s consistent with Zimmerman’s testimony, and does not show him to be a liar.
That’s because you are ignoring most of the evidence. We have witness statements that support his account of the fight or are unclear. We have physical evidence that he was on the bottom of the fight, and that Martin was above him. We have audio evidence from the NEN call that he stopped following Martin when he said he did. We have testimony from Jeantel that Martin returned home, and we have physical evidence that the fight happened near where Zimmerman claims to have stopped, not where Martin was.
Really, how much more evidence supporting it do you need before you see that the general outline of events is as Zimmerman claims?
A bit OT, but Leatherman went completely off the rails today. In his post he claims that the court postponed decision on Donnelly’s testimony (in fact she already ruled for defense): Bandar Slot Indonesia Terpercaya
[QUOTE=Leatherman]
The defense did not disclose the report to the State until after the witness completed his testimony. That constitutes a discovery violation and the State moved to strike Donnelly’s testimony. Judge Nelson conducted a Richardson hearing outside the presence of the jury late this afternoon. At the State’s request, she delayed issuing a ruling until tomorrow morning to give them an opportunity to prepare an argument supporting their claim that they were materially prejudiced by the discovery violation.
[/QUOTE]
And he claims the exact opposite of what really happened on the toxicology evidence decision:
[QUOTE=Leatherman]
Judge Nelson also issued an order late this afternoon denying the defense motion to reconsider its order prohibiting the defense from mentioning that trace amounts of marijuana were found in the Trayvon Martin’s blood sample.
[/QUOTE]
Wonder if the weirdos that follow him will swallow this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
State has to prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt and that GZ wasn’t/couldn’t have been in imminent danger when he fired.
It amounts to the same thing.
All 6 members of the jury will have to be convinced that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree as it’s described by Florida law before they can/will find GZ guilty of 2nd degree murder. It doesn’t appear the prosecution is doing a very good job of proving 2nd degree. At the end of the prosecution’s case, the prosecution suggested to the judge that if she decided to toss the 2nd charge that they would like her to consider manslaughter but that was done with the jury out of the courtroom. Sounds like a lack of confidence in their ability to prove their original charge.
The jury will also be instructed to consider whether GZ believed he was in imminent danger before he fired his pistol (aka self-defense). Will the jury decide that GZ was being beaten by TM? Will the jury decide that GZ was objectively in real danger from the beating and needed to stop the beating in order to save his own life? Will the jury decide that GZ had a reasonable perception that the next blow would result in great bodily harm or death? Will the jury decide that GZ believed that TM would use GZ’s own firearm to cause GZ great bodily harm or death? So many questions.
Regardless of whether the jury believes GZ is guilty of 2nd deg or manslaughter, if the jury believes GZ was actually in imminent danger or that GZ believed GZ was in imminent danger, Florida law allows the use of lethal force to save his own life.
That Zimmerman is a liar of course.
And not just a little liar, but a liar McLiarson. She sees that liar liar pants on fire makes up elaborate stories. That they happen to match much of the physical evidence at the scene… well, as Shawn from Psych has shown us, amazing powers of observation and recall are easy to master and can make you an incredibly effective liar.
Now why would Georgie pordgie lie so much and so well? Why, because he knows he is guilty that is why!!!11!!!
And if he knows he is guilty, then clearly he must be guilty! So even if the glove clearly don’t fit, you must convict, because… GUNS!!!11!!! :eek::eek::eek:
