Forensic expert: Trayvon Martin shot leaning over George Zimmerman

cawacko said:
Of any sort or just the original 2nd degree charge?
Click to expand...

I really don't see a conviction of any sort. But I haven't been following it w/ a fine tooth comb, either.

It just seems like there is too much ambiguity and too many conflicting accounts to surpass the "reasonable doubt" threshold.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't think it wise of you to advise Rana in the manner in which she can take you out.
Click to expand...
It's more pointing out that one can resort to using a firearm in self defense, even if your attacker is "only punching" a well placed punch can kill.
I'd challenge anyone to "take me out"!
I won't require a weapon.
 
Rana said:
I agree, I thought after the first week that this set of prosecuters wouldn't get second degree and their lack of going for the jugular cross examination, they may have blown the case.
Click to expand...
I don't think they really had a case for 2nd degree murder. I think it was a big time over reach on their part because of the media attention. To put it bluntly, I think Zimmerman was far to stupid to have used any premeditation or deliberation when he killed Trayvon.

I think what Zimmerman did was as witless as walking into a gay bar in a white dress after Labor Day and talking smack about Judy Garland.
 
007 said:
It's more pointing out that one can resort to using a firearm in self defense, even if your attacker is "only punching" a well placed punch can kill.
I'd challenge anyone to "take me out"!
I won't require a weapon.
Click to expand...
So what the fuck is your point?
 
Thing1 said:
I really don't see a conviction of any sort. But I haven't been following it w/ a fine tooth comb, either.

It just seems like there is too much ambiguity and too many conflicting accounts to surpass the "reasonable doubt" threshold.
Click to expand...
That depends. The judge can instruct the jury to deliberate on charges of 2nd deg murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, define those charges and then send them for deliberation.
 
This is an exception to the self defense defense.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Zimmerman provoked the use of force. It was not reasonable for him to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND there is no proof that he EVER tried to escape danger. Also, he knew the cops were on their way.

I think if the jury reads the law, and I would be shocked if they don't, Zimmerman is fucked. I think there is enough doubt about whether he demonstrated a depraved mind. He has so far failed to establish reasonable doubt with evidence that he was justified in the use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
That depends. The judge can instruct the jury to deliberate on charges of 2nd deg murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, define those charges and then send them for deliberation.
Click to expand...

The jury must be instructed of lesser and included offenses according to state law.
 
Rana said:
Zimmerman did not go to the hospital, did not have a concussion.
Click to expand...

the ME today said he should have been brought though.

Do you think anyone in a fist fight and hta few times will now have the right to shoot another and claim self defense?
Click to expand...

as a matter of law? I don't know. Morally? Pretty much yes.
 
Rana said:
No blood on Trayvon's hands, how did he cover Zimmermans face with his hands and not get any blood on his hands. You said the evidence supports Zimmermans story but you are leaving a few details out.
Click to expand...

I already explained this above, and o'mara pointed it out in re-direct. Zimmerman claimed he had his nose covered at some point in the altercation. That does not mean trayvons hand was dragged through blood. Zimmerman could very well have not been bleeding at that point. That and the rain. Absence of blood is not something that makes zimmermans story inconsistent.
 
Pete Campbell said:
the ME today said he should have been brought though.

[qouote]Do you think anyone in a fist fight and hta few times will now have the right to shoot another and claim self defense?
Click to expand...

as a matter of law? I don't know. Morally? Pretty much yes.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I think Trayvon Martin's right to self defense is the same as George Zimmermn's, if not greater. Trayvon was at a great disadvantage because George had a gun and Trayvon is dead and can't give his side of the story.
 
and by "idiotic comments" i am using hyperbole. That came off mean.. I'm not actually steaming or anything.
 
Rana said:
He had a gun, would you fear or our life when you knew you had a gun on your person?

Didn't Trayvon have a right to protect himself? He didn't know Zimmerman from Adm and Zimmerman was stalking him.

You don't bring a gun to a fist fight.

Facts don't match Zimmerman's story, no blood on Trayvon's hands, how can you cover a persons mouth, who has a bloody nose and not get blood on your hands.

The fact was he was following Trayvon, with a gun on his person.

It is why following his case, I would vote for manslaughter.
Click to expand...

LOL

The gun can protect if it's used. Wouldn't do any good to keep it in the holster while getting attacked.
Trayvon could have run away, but he chose to attack Zimmerman. From Z's testimony, trayvon threatened to kill him.

Does he have a right to defend himself? Florida law says YES
 
Pete Campbell said:
I already explained this above, and o'mara pointed it out in re-direct. Zimmerman claimed he had his nose covered at some point in the altercation. That does not mean trayvons hand was dragged through blood. Zimmerman could very well have not been bleeding at that point. That and the rain. Absence of blood is not something that makes zimmermans story inconsistent.
Click to expand...

IMO the part about the rain washing away the blood is iffy. It rained throughout the altercation. We saw the pix of GZ with blood on his face and head, rain's not going to skip GZ and wash away blood on TM only.

Also, what about chemicals like luminol that show blood even after it's been cleaned up?
 
tinfoil said:
LOL

The gun can protect if it's used. Wouldn't do any good to keep it in the holster while getting attacked.
Trayvon could have run away, but he chose to attack Zimmerman. From Z's testimony, trayvon threatened to kill him.

Does he have a right to defend himself? Florida law says YES
Click to expand...

Did TM have the right to confront his follower, yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top