The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Zimmerman also said a couple times he thought he shot wide... If the gun was touching the shirt, chalk up another lie.

I see you already said that. Never mind.

edit on 7/3/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

If the gun was touching the shirt and NOT pressed against the body, that would support Zimmerman's claim. It is possible to touch loose hanging clothing and not hit the body. This firearms expert has confirmed that the gun was touching the clothing and the shot was fired at close range.

Now her testimony by itself means very little. It is nothing we did not already know. So I have to wonder if her testimony is setting up for another witness.

That's where the ME who had direct contact with the body of Trayvon Martin comes into play.. hence why I am now speculating. I decided to speak up now in case the ME has not testified.

Now if the ME says that the gun was pressed against the body of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman will have a huge problem. Pressing the gun into the chest of Trayvon Martin would prove intent. It would also be a direct contradiction to Zimmerman's statements which were already played for the Jury. If this is what happens, the defense will probably have to put Zimmerman on the stand. There is no way you can just ignore such an inconsistency.

Just thinking ahead here.... like I have tried to explain several times this is a process.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by riffraff

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

It's painfully obvious that you aren't watching the trial.

Dude .. seriously ...

Dude seriously to you. HE KILLED SOMEONE and you people are justifying it! I don't give a crap about his color, his background, his upbringing. Zimmerman shot and KILLED Martin. #End of friggin' story!

Ill take it one step further. He killed somebody and the law justifies it. That is, unless this case takes a John Grisham/ M. Night Shamalamahamalaham twist. That would be exciting.

I don't live in this man's "laws". That's the difference between you and me. And, i certainly wouldn't need a firearm, to beat a so called "thug", like Martin. Only punks and cowards need a weapon to "defend" themselves. You wanna kill someone, join the police force or military, and do so: "lawfully"; as you say!

You don't live in this mans laws?!? That's exactly what thugs say
When did I say I wanted to kill someone? Join the military? Umm no. I don't believe in any of these wars. I won't leave my family kill and die for bush/obama. And join the police force? LMAO!! I have never met a cop that made me say "I wanna be like him". I have no need for cops. I am a peaceful, respectful citizen who carries his own gun.

I have to ask. How old are you? You still think in very concrete terms, are belligerently sarcastic and even resort to name calling more than a grown person can excuse. I'm guessing 17-21

reply to post by camaro68ss


Please, I am begging you, stop feeding the troll. He is purposely attempting to derail this thread.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


There actually is evidence of it, just because you choose not to observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think you realize the difference between evidence and proof.

The evidence would be that their attorney sought Rachel out, coerced her via interviews. He only allowed her to be interviewed by herself with him asking the questions. I remembered that being questionable at the time, but after seeing her in court it was well explained. Then in court she made it clear that she wasn't a fan of Crump and rushed through the interview "in a closet" and that she never thought it would go this far or that she would be in court. This is all evidence that points to the fact that she was coerced into giving the story she gave in order to get the settlement and she wasn't quite with it enough to understand the reverberations her lies would have and that she would be at risk when she was in court. If the Martin's and the attorney cared at all about this disposable tool they would have told her not to say anything that wasn't true or that could get her in trouble later in court.

Here's a question, for all you "smarty pants": George said, in his interview that he always carries his gun with him. He states that Trayvon came out of no where, and approached him, asking Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman responded, but WHY, at that point, didn't he flash the firearm on his hip, instead of letting Trayvon get close enough to hitting him. If Zimmerman felt threatened, when Trayvon circled his car, why wasn't his hand on his holster, while walking around, looking for Trayvon?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

No, just the opposite. You're words "Erm... because he'd been putting as much dedication into his combat classes as he'd put into his law studies, perhaps?" He obviously wasn't a cop, or had a career in law enforcement despite his "dedication" to classes. So, therefore he wasn't a hand-to-hand combat fighter, despite his "dedication" to combat classes.

reply to post by MrWendal


the Barrel of the gun is 5.5 to 6 inches in length. Unless it’s a snub nose. If martin is on top of Zimmerman, I can’t see how the gun would not be touching Martin when discharged. I fail to see how its important if it was touching him instead of his shirt. The fact is he was pointing the gun up from ground level. That’s all that matters.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Here's a question, for all you "smarty pants": George said, in his interview that he always carries his gun with him. He states that Trayvon came out of no where, and approached him, asking Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman responded, but WHY, at that point, didn't he flash the firearm on his hip, instead of letting Trayvon get close enough to hitting him. If Zimmerman felt threatened, when Trayvon circled his car, why wasn't his hand on his holster, while walking around, looking for Trayvon?

Smarty pants, flashing a weapon in a public place is a crime in most states.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Common sense.
He didn't have time, nor is "flashing" your firearm a common practice with anyone but thugs. Also it can be considered a threat.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Actually the barrel of the keltec pf9 is 3.1 inches. It would matter a little if the gun was touching him in a certain spot as it would show Zimmerman was very intentionally shooting him where he did, but it wouldn't change that he was doing it in self defense.

What's more important is that because the gun wasn't against Martin it shows that Martin was above Zimmerman. The stippling shows that the shirt was several inches away from Martin's skin which shows that Martin was on top of ZImmerman with his shirt hanging down when he was shot.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by MrWendal

 

the Barrel of the gun is 5.5 to 6 inches in length. Unless it’s a snub nose. If martin is on top of Zimmerman, I can’t see how the gun would not be touching Martin when discharged. I fail to see how its important if it was touching him instead of his shirt. The fact is he was pointing the gun up from ground level. That’s all that matters.

I'm not sure what semi auto firearms you are talking about but most, even duty pistols, are between 4 and 4.5 inches in barrel length... Compact conceal carry styled semi auto pistols are even shorter with a commonly used 3 inch barrel...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Actually the barrel of the keltec pf9 is 3.1 inches. It would matter a little if the gun was touching him in a certain spot as it would show Zimmerman was very intentionally shooting him where he did, but it wouldn't change that he was doing it in self defense.

What's more important is that because the gun wasn't against Martin it shows that Martin was above Zimmerman. The stippling shows that the shirt was several inches away from Martin's skin which shows that Martin was on top of ZImmerman with his shirt hanging down when he was shot.

Thanks for the Clarification! Star!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Common sense.
He didn't have time, nor is "flashing" your firearm a common practice with anyone but thugs. Also it can be considered a threat.

edit on 3-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

He had enough time to speak. And you talk about "common sense"? Riiiiiiiiiight.

Originally posted by UnBreakable
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

No, just the opposite. You're words "Erm... because he'd been putting as much dedication into his combat classes as he'd put into his law studies, perhaps?" He obviously wasn't a cop, or had a career in law enforcement despite his "dedication" to classes. So, therefore he wasn't a hand-to-hand combat fighter, despite his "dedication" to combat classes.

He was trying to build up the experience needed so that when his credit problems were solved, he could give joining up another try. Despite his lie to Serino that he wanted to be a judge, he'd never given up on his obsession... or, let's be kinder and say, desire... to be a cop. And, if he couldn't be a cop just yet, walking around the neighbourhood like he was one, was the next best thing until he got his badge.

A question: Just curious.

Who here has served on a jury and deliberated to a verdict.

Twice for me. One civil, one criminal.

Originally posted by roadgravel
A question: Just curious.

Who here has served on a jury and deliberated to a verdict.

Twice for me. One civil, one criminal.

I've been on the other end of a jury's verdict once, in far more justifiable self-defence circumstances, and still got 15 mths.

ps. And, obviously, hence my relatively short sentence, I didn't have to kill my attacker to defend myself.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by MrWendal

 

the Barrel of the gun is 5.5 to 6 inches in length. Unless it’s a snub nose. If martin is on top of Zimmerman, I can’t see how the gun would not be touching Martin when discharged. I fail to see how its important if it was touching him instead of his shirt. The fact is he was pointing the gun up from ground level. That’s all that matters.

I will explain it again....

During this trial while the prosecution has been making it's case, they have shown several interviews with Zimmerman. Including his reenactment for the Sandford PD, the interviews at the Police Station, and his interview on Hannity's show which went out on National TV. This is what the Jury has heard from Zimmerman, so in theory he would not even need to take the stand once the Defense has a chance to make their case.

In each of these interviews he claims he did NOT know if he actually shot Trayvon Martin or not. He claims Trayvon reached for his gun, he grabbed it and fired without aiming or really knowing where it was pointed. He just fired. So when Trayvon got off him after the shot, Zimmerman says he thought he shot wide and did not hit Trayvon.

This is why the testimony matters. Think about Zimmerman's story, not your idea of what should have happened. This is a trial, the Jury will look at the facts, the statements, the evidence presented and make a decision on that evidence, not what they think may or may not have happened. So if the ME says, the gun was pressed into the chest, this would be a direct contradiction to what Zimmerman says he did when the shot was fired.

This is why it matters. If that gun was pressed into the chest of Trayvon, it shows intent. It means that Zimmerman meant to shoot and hit that target. While some people would say, "So what? Your supposed to want to hit your target when you fire a gun and he was being beaten up" you can not overlook the fact that it is a direct contradiction to what Zimmerman has said. He said he thought the shot went wide and he had no idea if Trayvon was hit or not. If he is pressing the gun into the chest, how could he not know?

Does that make sense?

reply to post by MrWendal

He claims Trayvon reached for his gun, he grabbed it and fired without aiming or really knowing where it was pointed. He just fired. So when Trayvon got off him after the shot, Zimmerman says he thought he shot wide and did not hit Trayvon.

Where would he have to point if it were at POINT BLANK RANGE. When Trayvon got off him? I thought Zimmerman pushed him off???? And you really want me to watch this make-believe trial??? PAH-LEASE!

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by riffraff

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

It's painfully obvious that you aren't watching the trial.

Dude .. seriously ...

Dude seriously to you. HE KILLED SOMEONE and you people are justifying it! I don't give a crap about his color, his background, his upbringing. Zimmerman shot and KILLED Martin. #End of friggin' story!

Ill take it one step further. He killed somebody and the law justifies it. That is, unless this case takes a John Grisham/ M. Night Shamalamahamalaham twist. That would be exciting.

I don't live in this man's "laws". That's the difference between you and me. And, i certainly wouldn't need a firearm, to beat a so called "thug", like Martin. Only punks and cowards need a weapon to "defend" themselves. You wanna kill someone, join the police force or military, and do so: "lawfully"; as you say!

Well isn't your fist a weapon? Lets say GZ was a professional MMA fighter and punched TM and the blow killed him wouldn't that be wrong in your eyes?