George Zimmerman Trial

[military_irish]

[

Also the reason TM was in town (I believe his dads house) because he had just got expelled from his school in S FL for drugs....TM was not the angel the media has painted him out to be.

But then what kind of ratings would the news stations get if they wrote the truth?

 

[jmurphy75]

It makes a hell of lot of difference. For one the physical confrontation never would have taken place. And the kid thing..... Well you may be right. I will use young person from now on. Pot and guns on FB? 95% of my fB friends have guns on their FB photos. And not hunting rifles but semi automatics , tech9s and such. Hell probably 20 of them have something related to drugs/pot, so that is weak justification.

First off it really makes no difference, it's simple if you see someone suspisious in your neigborhood you have every right to follow them. Your argument that GZ getting out of his car lead or contributed to the confrontation is weak because you can then say TM's walking thru this neighborhood did the same thing. So let me get this straight because your "friends" have pot and guns on their FB means what? They happen to be upstanding citizens? Not sure why that makes my justification weak, it's called character reference look it up. Don't get me wrong I'm no goodie 2 shoes but it is what is is, you can't have your cake and eat it too, if that's how you put yourself out there then you can't pull the angel defense. It was a ****** situation that they both could've handled better, but at the end if you choose to get on top of someone and beat their head into the side walk then you had better be ready for the possible consequences.

 

[GoIrish41]

Also the reason TM was in town (I believe his dads house) because he had just got expelled from his school in S FL for drugs....TM was not the angel the media has painted him out to be.

I don't think that it matters if TM is he was a choir boy or if he was a delinquent. Zimmerman was armed and overzealous and he, alone, caused this incident to happen, which resulted in the death of a teenager. It will be a miscarriage of justice if he is not found guilty. TM isn't on trial and neither is the media. To suggest otherwise is a distraction.

 

[jmurphy75]

I don't think that it matte s if TM is he was a choir boy or if he was a delinquent. Zimmerman was armed and overzealous and he, alone, caused this incident to happen, which resulted in the death of a teenager. It will be a miscarriage of justice if he is not found guilty. TM isn't on trial and neither is the media. To suggest otherwise is a distraction.

Apparently you missed the part in the constitution where a person is allowed to be armed, and if it's proved he was attacked by TM then it's just called justified. In case you missed it the media has had GZ on trial from the time this started.

 

[Cackalacky]

First off it really makes no difference, it's simple if you see someone suspisious in your neigborhood you have every right to follow them. Your argument that GZ getting out of his car lead or contributed to the confrontation is weak because you can then say TM's walking thru this neighborhood did the same thing. So let me get this straight because your "friends" have pot and guns on their FB means what? They happen to be upstanding citizens? Not sure why that makes my justification weak, it's called character reference look it up. Don't get me wrong I'm no goodie 2 shoes but it is what is is, you can't have your cake and eat it too, if that's how you put yourself out there then you can't pull the angel defense. It was a ****** situation that they both could've handled better, but at the end if you choose to get on top of someone and beat their head into the side walk then you had better be ready for the possible consequences.

Lol.

 

[GoIrish41]

Apparently you missed the part in the constitution where a person is allowed to be armed, and if it's proved he was attacked by TM then it's just called justified. In case you missed it the media has had GZ on trial from the time this started.

apparently you missed the part where he chased a kid through the neighborhood in the rain because he didn't like the way he looked. The shooting didn't even happen until after the 911 operator told him not to follow TM any longer. If TM attacked him, could he not have been "standing his ground?" The last I checked, the Constitution of the US and the state of Forida does apply to African American teenagers, too. The media is reporting what is painfully obvious in this case. Have they demonstrated a little bit of outrage because it took police a month to arrest the guy who acknowledged killing an unarmed teenager, or that Zimmerman acted so innappropriately in the first place? Perhaps. That outrage is absolutley justified in this case, IMHO.

 

[GoIrish41]

First off it really makes no difference, it's simple if you see someone suspisious in your neigborhood you have every right to follow them. Your argument that GZ getting out of his car lead or contributed to the confrontation is weak because you can then say TM's walking thru this neighborhood did the same thing. So let me get this straight because your "friends" have pot and guns on their FB means what? They happen to be upstanding citizens? Not sure why that makes my justification weak, it's called character reference look it up. Don't get me wrong I'm no goodie 2 shoes but it is what is is, you can't have your cake and eat it too, if that's how you put yourself out there then you can't pull the angel defense. It was a ****** situation that they both could've handled better, but at the end if you choose to get on top of someone and beat their head into the side walk then you had better be ready for the possible consequences.

he's dead. He is not "pulling the angel defense." If you follow someone through a neighborhood in the rain for no reason, you might also expect them to feel threatened and do something about it, no?

 

[GoIrish41]

what's going on with the quotes in this thread? It looks like we're arguing with our own points, lol.

 

[Cackalacky]

what's going on with the quotes in this thread? It looks like we're arguing with our own points, lol.

I noticed that too! I have been know to argue with myself from time to time though.

 

[jmurphy75]

he's dead. He is not "pulling the angel defense." If you follow someone through a neighborhood in the rain for no reason, you might also expect them to feel threatened and do something about it, no?

I agree with this 100% but what do you do about it? Words are one thing but attacking or getting physical with someone is another. We're all operating on what the media has reported, when the forensic evidence is entered into court we'll have a better idea of what happened.

 

[FLDomer]

apparently you missed the part where he chased a kid through the neighborhood in the rain because he didn't like the way he looked. The shooting didn't even happen until after the 911 operator told him not to follow TM any longer. If TM attacked him, could he not have been "standing his ground?" The last I checked, the Constitution of the US and the state of Forida does apply to African American teenagers, too. The media is reporting what is painfully obvious in this case. Have they demonstrated a little bit of outrage because it took police a month to arrest the guy who acknowledged killing an unarmed teenager, or that Zimmerman acted so innappropriately in the first place? Perhaps. That outrage is absolutley justified in this case, IMHO.

Chased?? Really dramatic much? He followed a person that was not known in the neighborhood, which had a recent string of break ins.

Attacking is contradictory to defense and standing your ground.

Do people realize that GZ is a minority himself, he is Hispanic.

 

[jmurphy75]

It's easy for everyone to voice their opinion on what they think they would've done or what is right. The first problem with his is the false info the media has put out there, the second problem is if you're not from the area you can't really understand the situation fully, third is unless you've ever really been attacked you can't speak to what is right, wrong or justified about the stand your ground concept. Understand I hold my opinions because I know the area and the crime rate, I have friends in local law enforcement and FBI in Central Florida, and have also been attacked by several Hispanic youths to the point of fracturing my C5 vertebrae. I'm not just spewing opinion with no base of understanding.

 

[Emcee77]

Would Martin have killed GZ? Maybe maybe not but should he wait to find out? So maybe he wouldn't have killed him since you find it hard to believe, maybe he just causes serious head injury? Is that ok, does GZ have a right to defend himself from that?

I posted this earlier in this thread. I think it answers your question.

The tragedy is that Martin is dead ... if you believe that Martin wouldn't have really killed Zimmerman (as ACamp pointed out, we don't know that for sure and never will), nobody needed to die.

That's not to say that Zimmerman should go to jail for murder. If someone is punching me and slamming my head into a concrete sidewalk and reaching for my gun and telling me that I'm going to die (Zimmerman's story), I'm almost certainly justified in using deadly force against him. But would Martin have really killed Zimmerman, if neither man was armed? I just find it hard to believe. That's the tragedy.

If Zimmerman's story is true, he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

Or is your question, would Zimmerman still be justified in shooting Martin even if Martin didn't reach for his gun and say he was going to kill him? Yes, probably. Punching someone and slamming his head into the concrete is likely enough to put someone in reasonable fear for his life, which would justify the use of deadly force in self-defense.

But that makes it no less tragic.

 

[GoIrish41]

Chased?? Really dramatic much? He followed a person that was not known in the neighborhood, which had a recent string of break ins.

Attacking is contradictory to defense and standing your ground.

Do people realize that GZ is a minority himself, he is Hispanic.

The 911 call that I heard was George Zimmerman calling in to the police, and he sounded a bit winded, telling them that he saw this guy who he didn't know in his neighbrorhood that he didn't know (I know, that sounds like a criminal act) and saying he was going to pursue him and being told NOT TO. But, he did anyway. Who knows how aggressive Zimmerman was after we absolutely know that happened because anyone who wants to know can listen to the tape. You can say I'm being dramatic, but that is what I heard multimple times with my own ears. I think that the Florida law says, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that if you feel like your live is in danger you have the right to defend yourself. This is precisely why it is an stupid law because you can't possible know what was in someone's mind and if they felt threatened. Attacking is a defense to being attacked yourself when a person feels threatened, is it not? The guy was in fact "chasing" him for no reason. TM clearly felt threatened. Why else would he feel the need to attack Zimmerman. It is really the only thing that makes sense, unless you think he just got bored because he ran out of Skittles and decided to randomly attack someone.

 

[GoIrish41]

I posted this earlier in this thread. I think it answers your question.



If Zimmerman's story is true, he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

Or is your question, would Zimmerman still be justified in shooting Martin even if Martin didn't reach for his gun and say he was going to kill him? Yes, probably. Punching someone and slamming his head into the concrete is likely enough to put someone in reasonable fear for his life, which would justify the use of deadly force in self-defense.

But that makes it no less tragic.

Unfortunately, the only story we have is Zimmerman's. Who knows when the gun was pulled? If we are going to just take Zimmerman's word for it, why even have a justice system? The truth would alawy be with the person who survived. All of the evicence I heard with my own ears suggests that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He is the only one who said that Martin said he was going to kill him and attacked. My question is why should we believe him since he is the one who ignored the direction of the police.

 

[FLDomer]

The 911 call that I heard was George Zimmerman calling in to the police, and he sounded a bit winded, telling them that he saw this guy who he didn't know in his neighbrorhood that he didn't know (I know, that sounds like a criminal act) and saying he was going to pursue him and being told NOT TO. But, he did anyway. Who knows how aggressive Zimmerman was after we absolutely know that happened because anyone who wants to know can listen to the tape. You can say I'm being dramatic, but that is what I heard multimple times with my own ears. I think that the Florida law says, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that if you feel like your live is in danger you have the right to defend yourself. This is precisely why it is an stupid law because you can't possible know what was in someone's mind and if they felt threatened. Attacking is a defense to being attacked yourself when a person feels threatened, is it not? The guy was in fact "chasing" him for no reason. TM clearly felt threatened. Why else would he feel the need to attack Zimmerman. It is really the only thing that makes sense, unless you think he just got bored because he ran out of Skittles and decided to randomly attack someone.

He was following him in a car while on the phone with the 911 operator so if any shortness of breath, possibly adrenaline (thinking he was on the tail of the cause of all the B&E recently). FL law does give you the right to stand your ground if your life is being threatened, like having your face smashed, head slammed against the side walk or being threatened with a weapon or other serious bodily harm. I don't think someone following you asking what the hell your doing (alledgedly whay happened) is grounds for stand your ground. Was GZ wrong for not listening to 911 operator and standing down, it's pretty clear he was and he would probably admit that. Is it unfortunate that an altercation occurred and someone lost their life, yes. But the events/full truth will come to light with the witness accounts and other forensic evidence and hopefully justice will be served properly, not like the other case in the area which was botched and a truly innocent life lost will never have justice in this word (Casey Anthony). In my opinion GZ was/is an idiot for not just backing off when the operator told him to but from what info I have heard/read (especially being down here) he did not chase down this person and pop him like cold blooded killer, but approached a person that got aggressive and GZ started to get his *** whooped and scared for his life drew his firearm and fired.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Chased?? Really dramatic much? He followed a person that was not known in the neighborhood, which had a recent string of break ins.

Attacking is contradictory to defense and standing your ground.

Do people realize that GZ is a minority himself, he is Hispanic.

Was not known by who? His fathers fiancée lived in the neighborhood, didn't she? The block-watch shooter didn't even actually live in that neighborhood, he was just "staying temporarily."

 

[FLDomer]

Was not known by who? His parents lived in the neighborhood, didn't they? The block-watch shooter didn't even actually live in that neighborhood.

TM did NOT live in the neighborhood. He lived full time in the Miami but was up at his Dad's fiancee's house but was not there regularly. He was in town because he had recently been expelled from his HS in S FL for drugs. GZ was appointed coordinator of the neighborhood watch for the HOA and was renting a property in the gated community that had suffered a rash of break ins and even a shooting.

 

[jmurphy75]

Unfortunately, the only story we have is Zimmerman's. Who knows when the gun was pulled? If we are going to just take Zimmerman's word for it, why even have a justice system? The truth would alawy be with the person who survived. All of the evicence I heard with my own ears suggests that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He is the only one who said that Martin said he was going to kill him and attacked. My question is why should we believe him since he is the one who ignored the direction of the police.

Following someone makes you the aggressor? Not really especially when you are tasked with being the Community Watch Leader by the HOA. I've followed people in my community when there were a series of break ins, or should we just make it easy for the criminals and let them be on their way. Your whole basis is mounted on the fact that GZ should've known TM was not going to break into someone's house, how could he know that? And the fact that "evidence" you've heard makes GZ the aggressor is baseless, the medical reports and crime scene photos make TM the aggressor. They are not just going to take GZ's word for it that's why they collected evidence and are having a trial. By the way GZ did not ignore the direction of the police, he was on the phone with a 911 operator and there is a big difference.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

TM did NOT live in the neighborhood. He lived full time in the Miami but was up at his Dad's fiancee's house but was not there regularly. He was in town because he had recently been expelled from his HS in S FL for drugs. GZ was appointed coordinator of the neighborhood watch for the HOA and was renting a property in the gated community that had suffered a rash of break ins and even a shooting.

Yeah, yeah, I heard all the gang banger stuff about TM. All of which was a lie. They even got an intimidating photo of a street punk with a similar name, (must fall under they don't all look alike after all, but who cares).

Even if this kid had an issue with drugs, (which has nothing directly to do with a propensity toward violence or the circumstances of his death), how does that make him any worse than some kids ND recruits for football? I have heard many argue for a second chance in that case. He was a KID.

The problem is, to engage TM, GZ would have had to engage in at least simple assault. Correct? As GZ didn't have any power to arrest and detain, he has no defense. So the gated community hires a "homeless person" of proven low character, no skills to execute that job he was given, questionable mental competence, and as a result, he kills a person staying with a legal resident. I want to see that homeowners association, every member of it, and any builders, banks, lending institutions successfully sued to the maximum penalty of civil law. GZ is small potatoes. In a way he was a victim here too.

The important things to remember about GZ:

He took a gun on a job that needs a cell phone and a powerful flashlight.

He walked up to someone in the dark that he thought was "suspicious."

When he called it in, prior to confronting that person, the 9-1-1 operator warned him to stay away from the person and let the police handle it. (For good reason.)

GZ did not have a clear record of meeting his financial obligations prior to the shooting, which not only casts his character into doubt, but his legitimacy of being the watch block captain. (Or the sanity of the choice the homeowners association made.)

And he and his wife conspired after the shooting to steal over a hundred thousand dollars. They repeatedly perjured themselves claiming indigent status when they had collected over a hundred and fifty thousand dollars through contributions. They apparently communicated balances back and forth while Zimmerman was in jail. All they had to do is claim it all and use it for atty fees, room and bord and they were good, but no they had to try to profit off of it. And this is my bottom line on the case, Geo Zimmerman's decision making capabilities!

 

[FLDomer]

Following someone makes you the aggressor? Not really especially when you are tasked with being the Community Watch Leader by the HOA. I've followed people in my community when there were a series of break ins, or should we just make it easy for the criminals and let them be on their way. Your whole basis is mounted on the fact that GZ should've known TM was not going to break into someone's house, how could he know that? And the fact that "evidence" you've heard makes GZ the aggressor is baseless, the medical reports and crime scene photos make TM the aggressor. They are not just going to take GZ's word for it that's why they collected evidence and are having a trial. By the way GZ did not ignore the direction of the police, he was on the phone with a 911 operator and there is a big difference.

Also GZ continued to follow TM because months earlier GZ called Orlando PD about a young black male looking into windows of homes, told to sit tight by the operator and by the time the police arrive the individual was gone. There was a breakin later on that same week and a young black male was apprehended with stolen property from one of the neighborhood homes and it was ID'd as the same male GZ had called about earlier on that week.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Also GZ continued to follow TM because months earlier GZ called Orlando PD about a young black male looking into windows of homes, told to sit tight by the operator and by the time the police arrive the individual was gone. There was a breakin later on that same week and a young black male was apprehended with stolen property from one of the neighborhood homes and it was ID'd as the same male GZ had called about earlier on that week.

Every deposition on record shows that Zimmerman never previously identified any suspect he followed, (and he made seven emergency calls), by color.

And it doesn't matter if a blue man, or all three was caught in a break-in. That has nothing to do with this case, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmurphy75 View Post
Following someone makes you the aggressor? Not really especially when you are tasked with being the Community Watch Leader by the HOA. I've followed people in my community when there were a series of break ins, or should we just make it easy for the criminals and let them be on their way. Your whole basis is mounted on the fact that GZ should've known TM was not going to break into someone's house, how could he know that? And the fact that "evidence" you've heard makes GZ the aggressor is baseless, the medical reports and crime scene photos make TM the aggressor. They are not just going to take GZ's word for it that's why they collected evidence and are having a trial. By the way GZ did not ignore the direction of the police, he was on the phone with a 911 operator and there is a big difference.

You realize nothing in your quote has anything to do with the case, rule of law, or reality.

Nothing in evidence makes TM the aggressor. He had no offensive wounds, scrapes of the knuckles. No wounds to his face from someone fighting back, and only a contact wound from a gunshot to his chest. Initially there was ambiguity as to the distance of the wound because the rain washed away some of the classic marks of a close contact wound.

The wound to Zimmerman's scalp however was deemed ambiguous, and was not described by those first on the scene.

 

[FLDomer]

Yeah, yeah, I heard all the gang banger stuff about TM. All of which was a lie. They even got an intimidating photo of a street punk with a similar name, (must fall under they don't all look alike after all, but who cares).

Even if this kid had an issue with drugs, (which has nothing directly to do with a propensity toward violence or the circumstances of his death), how does that make him any worse than some kids ND recruits for football? I have heard many argue for a second chance in that case. He was a KID.

The problem is, to engage TM, GZ would have had to engage in at least simple assault. Correct? As GZ didn't have any power to arrest and detain, he has no defense. So the gated community hires a "homeless person" of proven low character, no skills to execute that job he was given, questionable mental competence, and as a result, he kills a person staying with a legal resident. I want to see that homeowners association, every member of it, and any builders, banks, lending institutions successfully sued to the maximum penalty of civil law. GZ is small potatoes. In a way he was a victim here too.

The important things to remember about GZ:

He took a gun on a job that needs a cell phone and a powerful flashlight.

He walked up to someone in the dark that he thought was "suspicious."

When he called it in, prior to confronting that person, the 9-1-1 operator warned him to stay away from the person and let the police handle it. (For good reason.)

GZ did not have a clear record of meeting his financial obligations prior to the shooting, which not only casts his character into doubt, but his legitimacy of being the watch block captain. (Or the sanity of the choice the homeowners association made.)

And he and his wife conspired after the shooting to steal over a hundred thousand dollars. They repeatedly perjured themselves claiming indigent status when they had collected over a hundred and fifty thousand dollars through contributions. They apparently communicated balances back and forth while Zimmerman was in jail. All they had to do is claim it all and use it for atty fees, room and bord and they were good, but no they had to try to profit off of it. And this is my bottom line on the case, Geo Zimmerman's decision making capabilities!

Bogs once again you are going off here on a tangent... When have I made and comparison to a recruit of the Irish and god knows if a recruit for ND had multiple picks of firearms, pot, etc on his social media pages along with incidents of trouble I HS I would not be to crazy about the staff going after him.

GZ was homeless??? He was hired, for a job?? It was volunteer position he was appointed too. He was within his legal right to be carrying his weapon which he was legally permitted to carry.

It appears your great knowledge of this case seems to come from the super a curated, non rating driven media.

IMO GZ is by no means is a saint but neither is TM. I do not believe GZ is a murderer.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bogs once again you are going off here on a tangent... When have I made and comparison to a recruit of the Irish and god knows if a recruit for ND had multiple picks of firearms, pot, etc on his social media pages along with incidents of trouble I HS I would not be to crazy about the staff going after him.

GZ was homeless??? He was hired, for a job?? It was volunteer position he was appointed too. He was within his legal right to be carrying his weapon which he was legally permitted to carry.

It appears your great knowledge of this case seems to come from the super a curated, non rating driven media.

IMO GZ is by no means is a saint but neither is TM. I do not believe GZ is a murderer.

I got it FL, you don't believe Zimmerman is a murderer. I don't know whether or not he is, the jury hasn't come back yet. I know he is a scumbag. And I know 99.9 percent of all that has been reported about TM was inflammatory manipulation. Period. Just like painting Zimmerman to be a well intentioned BW Captain. People knew his instability. Many people. Once again this case is about the weakness of a law, and the financial liability of some pussies who didn't have the balls to take care of business themselves.

I can give you a hometown example of a place within easy walking distance of my house, that had a much worse problem, where we the homeowners banded together with the police and did it right. Cleaned an area up in three months, unfortunately two police officers were shot at, one was wounded. But after that the nightsticks came out, with assault rifles backing them and the paddy wagons left full, repeatedly. No, one died. And only the bad guys ended up in jail.

 

[FLDomer]

I got it FL, you don't believe Zimmerman is a murderer.

Now how did u come to that conclusion?? Lol. When you look at it objectively at the facts, the forensics that have been released and not listen and buy all the media spewings.

 

[jmurphy75]

Every deposition on record shows that Zimmerman never previously identified any suspect he followed, (and he made seven emergency calls), by color.

And it doesn't matter if a blue man, or all three was caught in a break-in. That has nothing to do with this case, correct?




You realize nothing in your quote has anything to do with the case, rule of law, or reality.

Nothing in evidence makes TM the aggressor. He had no offensive wounds, scrapes of the knuckles. No wounds to his face from someone fighting back, and only a contact wound from a gunshot to his chest. Initially there was ambiguity as to the distance of the wound because the rain washed away some of the classic marks of a close contact wound.

The wound to Zimmerman's scalp however was deemed ambiguous, and was not described by those first on the scene.

Actually the wounds on GZ (especially the back of his head) with the crime scene forensics (blood on the sidewalk where his head was getting bashed) adds to the credibility of his story. You won't always have wounds from someone fighting back especially when you are fighting from the bottom.

 

[GoIrish41]

Following someone makes you the aggressor? Not really especially when you are tasked with being the Community Watch Leader by the HOA. I've followed people in my community when there were a series of break ins, or should we just make it easy for the criminals and let them be on their way.

Being a community watch leader means you should be the guy to phone the police, not the one who approaches someone you feel is suspicious. You shouldn't make it easy for criminals, you should call the police.

Your whole basis is mounted on the fact that GZ should've known TM was not going to break into someone's house, how could he know that?

How could he possibly know that he WAS going to break into someone's house? Was it the Skittles? ... the hoodie? ... or because he was a black teenager (all of whom obviously break in to houses as a matter of course.)? This is an absurd statement. How could he know that the cop who answered his call wasn't going to break into a house?

And the fact that "evidence" you've heard makes GZ the aggressor is baseless, the medical reports and crime scene photos make TM the aggressor. They are not just going to take GZ's word for it that's why they collected evidence and are having a trial. By the way GZ did not ignore the direction of the police, he was on the phone with a 911 operator and there is a big difference

First, he brought a gun to a shift on the neighborhood watch. That is a fairly agressive thing to do for a guy whose responsibility is to call the police if you see something suspicious. He is the one who pursued Martin. Are you suggesting that Martin just out of the blue decided to attack Zimmerman for no reason? That would make Martin the agressor but there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. The fact that Zimmerman confronted Martin makes him the agressor and the evidence at the crime scene does not tell us at what point Zimmerman pulled the gun or if the gun was out already when he approached Martin. Something that Zimmerman did or said compelled Martin to attack, presumably because he felt threatened (isn't this what the stupid stand your ground law says that you are allowed to do?). Add to that that the 9-1-1 operator told Zimmerman to stop pursuing Martin. You can say that when Zimmerman called 9-1-1 that he wasn't speaking to an officer, but he was certainly speaking to an official representative of the police depatment. That you are trying to suggest a distinction on this point tells me that you are attempting to focus on a detail that is meaningless in the context of the situation that compelled Zimmerman to call in the first place -- distracting from the relavant to talk about something that is irrelevant. The only thing that is relavant in the discussion of the 9-1-1- operator is that if Zimmerman would have followed her instructions there would not have been a crime scene. Period.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Now let me tell you a story about a man named Jed.

I have a neighbor, who like me has a concealed carry permit. And he wants to shoot somebody. He cannot participate in our neighborhood block watch. Our neighborhood does not have gates. It does however have over twenty former military, including eight marines, most of whom have won combat citations. (They all know to find something to hide behind and call in for support.)

Rain Did Not Wash Away Defendant’s Blood and DNA in Trayvon Martin Murder Case
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The defendant claims that Trayvon Martin punched him repeatedly in the face (24 times) after breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground with a sucker punch. He told the police that Trayvon straddled him as he lay on his back and rained down blow after blow striking him in the nose and face approximately 24 times. When he started screaming for help, Trayvon then grabbed his head and started slamming it into a cement sidewalk until he thought his head would explode. Then Trayvon pinched his nose and covered his mouth to silence his screams for help and suffocate him to death. He said he suddenly remembered that he had a gun concealed in a holster inside the waistband of his pants behind his right hip when he thought he felt Trayvon reaching for it, so he pulled it out, extended his right arm and shot Trayvon to death.

There are a multitude of problems with this story, not the least of which is the absence of any significant wounds that one would expect to see from such a beating. We have examined and discussed photos of the defendant’s wounds taken by a professional photographer at the police station several hours after the shooting and concluded that his minor wounds are not consistent with his story. We have several medical professionals commenting on this blog who have treated patients who were beaten as badly as the defendant claimed he was beaten and their wounds were far more serious than the defendant’s and required medical treatment. The defendant was treated at the scene and declined multiple offers to transport him to the ER for treatment. The photos taken at the police department do not support his claim that his nose was broken. In fact, we have not found any persuasive evidence that Trayvon ever struck the defendant.

For example, if the defendant’s story were true, we would expect that the crime lab would have detected the presence of the defendant’s blood and DNA on the lower sleeves and cuffs of his two sweatshirts and his fingernail cuttings obtained by the Assistant Medical Examiner at the autopsy. The crime lab did not detect the presence of blood on the lower sleeves and cuffs of Trayvon’s sweatshirts and the only DNA detected in the fingernail cuttings excluded the defendant and was was consistent with Trayvon Martin.

The defendant’s supporters contend that no blood was detected on the cuffs and lower sleeves of Trayvon Martin’s two sweatshirts because the rain had washed away all of the defendant’s blood and the scrapings from only one fingernail were tested. They also claim that no blood was discovered on Trayvon’s hands because Trayvon covered them with plastic bags before he assaulted the defendant.

Let’s deal with the last claim first because it is the most ridiculous. Police routinely bag the hands of homicide victims to preserve trace evidence and that is what they did to Trayvon’s hands.

They also complain that Trayvon’s hands were not swabbed, but that is not surprising since the standard practice is to cut a homicide victim’s fingernails and examine them for trace evidence. Forensic scientists do this because trace evidence can transfer from a victim’s hands to another person, surface or fall off. Trace evidence, particularly blood and DNA gets trapped under fingernails and that is why fingernail cuttings are the preferred location to check for trace evidence.

They soak the fingernail cuttings in a solution of purified water overnight and spin it out in a centrifuge to obtain all of the cellular debris present. Then they examine the debris under a microscope. If they find intact cells, the extract the DNA and type it. They do not scrape one fingernail and throw the rest away. Whoever conjured up that explanation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It’s probably the same person who said Trayvon wrapped his hands in plastic bags before assaulting the defendant.

Pathetic and laughable nonsense.

What about the claim that rain washed away the blood and DNA?

That claim is almost, if not quite as ridiculous, because we are discussing whether the rain would wash away all blood present on fabric leaving no detectable trace amount. To understand why the rain would not wash away any detectable amount of blood, let us take a look at presumptive tests for blood and failed efforts to remove all detectable trace amounts of blood invisible to the human eye.

Experience has shown that it’s virtually impossible to clean-up blood spatter at a crime scene so that no DNA can be detected. And that is after using water, solvents, cleaning fluids and other assorted chemicals in multiple washings to remove all visible traces of blood. Even though the human eye cannot see trace amounts of blood residue, luminol will detect it. Luminol is so sensitive that it can detect the presence of blood in serial dilutions down to 1:100,000. If luminol can detect it, PCR testing certainly will type the DNA present.

Other chemicals used in presumptive testing for the presence of blood are leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastixs, Hemident, and Bluestarr. All are as equally sensitive to blood as Luminol except for leuchomalachite green (1:10,000). For more information, please read this Technical Note in the Journal of Forensic Science, published in 2006. JFS is a peer reviewed professional journal.

The defendant’s supporters do not realize that a complete DNA profile can be developed from the DNA contained in a single white blood cell by using the STR/PCR process (red blood cells do not have a nucleus). In practice, they require more than a single cell to avoid copying a contaminant DNA introduced extraneously into the testing process, but they do not need very much sample.

In the mid 80s, Dr. Kary Mullis developed a new DNA typing system that involved using chemicals and bacteria present in high temperature hot springs to mimmick cellular division and create more DNA, or PCR product to type. PCR is short for the polymerase chain reaction. The process can produce millions of copies of specific sequences of genetic material or loci called STR’s (short tandem repeats) The FBI Crime Lab later standardized the DNA extraction and typing process. By the end of the 90s, all public and private crime labs were using the same kit to type DNA and that is what the Florida Crime Lab did in this case.

In 1993, Dr. Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery.

Therefore, the argument that rain washed away even invisible trace amounts of blood and DNA is ridiculous and not supported in any of the peer reviewed literature.

For more information on Dr. Mullis, please visit his website and Wikipedia. He is a genius, avid surfer and fascinating character, even if some of his political views and opinions are a bit odd.

 

[Redbar]

I hate this case, I really do, wish this incident had never happened. Also, been blown away by this thread...I'll leave it at that. Been trying to stay away from it but, what the heck,

What's really disturbing to me(other than TM being killed) is the astonishing number of deaths per year from black on black crime. I just don't see the African American community up in arms when other black people take each other out in large numbers, but someone of a different race kills a black person and riots are a real possibility. (wonder who calls me a racist first.lol)

I won't be the first to call anybody anything, but I am curious how many murders the African American community can have before they give up their right to be outraged by a young man's murder based on being erroneously racially profiled, by a fellow civillian with no experience or authority? What is good number? If it were equal to the ratio of European American on European American murders could they then feel outraged?

Here is something that disturbs me about this... I have heard people imply and flat out state (media, random converstaions I have had and even on messages boards like IE, in fact maybe even here if I look back into it) that according to them, even IF the bolded is what happened, GZ should go to prison for murder... as if there is no grounds to use deadly force anymore.

If that's where this country is headed, that scares me...

again, before anyone jumps on me I am not saying that's what happened... just that some seem to be of the opinion that even if that's how it went down it doesn't matter.

I did in fact say on this site that it would not matter to me if GZ had some injuries, because in my mind that is not what this case should hinge on. If this case hinges on whether or not GZ had some injuries then I think the right to stand your ground is being unevenly applied. The question in my mind is: At what point do you instigate/provoke/set into motion a string of events that guarantee a confrontation that should then cause you to surrender your right to claim self defense?

If a guy decides to stash his legally owned assault rifle under his best Klan whites and stand on public property outside a house in his hood where he suspects criminal activities are taking place, and if he is confronted by a group of people who think he might be up to know good, can he claim self defense? What if a black guy in Idaho legally arms himself to the tooth and sets up surveillance outside some neo nazi encampment that he thinks made the Meth that took his son's life. When the locals come out to confront him can he stand his ground? What if he waits until they tear his shirt or throw him to the ground, then can he open up on them?

Since when is that against the law? He had every right to follow TM his intent was to follow until the police arrived. Last I checked that was legal especially in my own neighborhood.

What if you were in a different neighborhood, car broke down, and had to walk on foot, and you were suddenly being followed. What if the guy following you tried in some way to detain you, I'm guessing that wouldn't sit too well with you.

I did not say it was against the law. He made a choice to get out of his car. He also disobeyed the request of the 911 responder, which is not illegal. He did not have to get out of his car. He chose to. That to me says he made a decision that was going to end in a confrontation or at a minimum exacerbate whatever the situation was at that time. It is clear to me that he was not worried about self-defense at this point.

If you choose to follow someone with the intent of discovering what they are doing, you might find trouble.

I think this IS a big issue: who had choices and who was forced to react based on the other persons choices. TM only had two choices, 1.) assume this guy is above board and surrender to his will whatever that may be or 2.) fight back in some way. I think fleeing was probably not an option as he was on foot being followed by someone in a car, suddenly running to someone's door or seeking cover in their back yard would likely gotten him shot or arrested.

Just curious as to what difference it makes if GZ had to or decided to leave his car or not?
Also your "man shot a kid" statement sounds just like the media, a 17 year old "kid" like TM is just as capable of bad things as any man. Evidence has been shown of TM's text about drugs, guns, and fighting. As well as being suspended from school for pot, and pics of pot and guns on his FB profile, so your "kid" comment isn't very suitable.

People talk about how shameless the media is in sensationalizing the case then start talking about what TM had on his facebook page. I don't know if TM was a good kid or bad kid but it has NO bearing on what happened that night. The jury should not give GZ 15 years if he was a good kid and 10 years if he was an o.k. kid and a medal if he was a bad kid. GZ had ZERO insight into what kind of kid he was when he decided to confront/ or cause a confrontation to occur. I do not know if GZ is a good guy or a bad guy, neither did TM, probably they were both operating out of fear, neither very experienced in these types of scenarios, that is why it is better to let trained police who are used to sizing up a suspect and are also known by that suspect to be stopping them for a reason and not just a wacko following you for God knows what.
My problem is not so much with the individuals here but with a posture by the law that allows anyone with their own paranoid, racist, unsubstantiated or even altruistic, noble, and thoughtful notions to become vigilantes and attempt to do what trained professionals are supposed to do. The problem with this is we are a nation governed by law, decided in courts, prescribed by law enforcement officers NOT a nation governed by every other citizens fears, prejudices, notions, experience, mood and mental state.

So ACamp, I am not saying there are no grounds to use deadly force, but I am saying that if this is where we are headed, then it scares me.

 

[BobD]

I think that maybe this is a situation where two prejudices came together with a terribly tragic outcome. One young man paid with his life, the other will pay for the rest of his. A situation that could have been prevented by love over hate, common sense over ignorance.