It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Zimmerman Trial
page: 208share:
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Hey, I can speculate all I want. The only person who REALLY knows what happenned that night is Zimmerman, and he has hardly proved the most reliable source memory-wise, or honesty -wise. Zimmerman supporters have been quite happy to let their imaginations run rampant thinking about the savage AA kid who attacked their hero, so don't get your panties bunched when the opposition do it.
He doesn't need to prove anything; that is the State's job. They need to prove a very high crime (2nd degree murder isn't easy to convict on what they have).
Again, Zimmerman needs to prove nothing...that is the State's job.
reply to post by Xtrozero
But Zimmerman nor Martin knew each others armaments so I am not sure what you are arguing. Each knew their own, but not the other. Martin chose incorrectly (if we are to believe the way the testimony is going; which is all in favor of Martin attacking and being the aggressor).
Zimmerman didn't start off with the weapon and only used it when he felt his life was in danger; correctly utilized. That is if we fully believe his story.
The State cannot win this. They are in the hole.
But Zimmerman nor Martin knew each others armaments so I am not sure what you are arguing. Each knew their own, but not the other. Martin chose incorrectly (if we are to believe the way the testimony is going; which is all in favor of Martin attacking and being the aggressor).
Zimmerman didn't start off with the weapon and only used it when he felt his life was in danger; correctly utilized. That is if we fully believe his story.
The State cannot win this. They are in the hole.
reply to post by ownbestenemy
From the outset, Zimmerman has been responsible for providing an affirmative defence of his actions. He decided to let lawyers do it for him and now he is being tried by a jury. All the state was required to do was poke enough holes in Zimmerman's story as related by lawyers and those with a vested interest in it, then leave the rest to the jury. The state doesn't have to prove where and how Zimmerman said it happened is a definite lie, just that when taking all other facts into account it is likely to be one.
From the outset, Zimmerman has been responsible for providing an affirmative defence of his actions. He decided to let lawyers do it for him and now he is being tried by a jury. All the state was required to do was poke enough holes in Zimmerman's story as related by lawyers and those with a vested interest in it, then leave the rest to the jury. The state doesn't have to prove where and how Zimmerman said it happened is a definite lie, just that when taking all other facts into account it is likely to be one.
edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy
From the outset, Zimmerman has been responsible for providing an affirmative defence of his actions. He decided to let lawyers do it for him and now he is being tried by a jury. All the state was required to do was poke enough holes in Zimmerman's story as related by lawyers and those with a vested interest it, then leave the rest to the jury. .
No the State must prove "ill will, depraved mind or evil intent"; not poke holes in Zimmerman's account. You don't understand the system. Zimmerman hired lawyers to ensure that the State does not operate outside of its legally bounded obligations to prove that.
Burden is on the State to show the jury that Zimmerman set out to kill; that hasn't been met by any standards. Zimmerman's only actions is to claim innocence to the charges levied.
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Does firing one shot in the heart, rolling the body off you, getting up and holstering your firearm, and then steadily straddling the dying kid beneath you, sound like the actions of a person on the brink of consciousness and fighting for his life?
Wouldn't you expect a person who was really in such a stressful situation to shoot and then not stop pulling the trigger until the threat was over, once they were forced to reach for their gun?
Everywhere I've been on the web that discusses gun use sensibly says that if you have to pull out your firearm, 2 shots minimum centre mass is the way to go, and if you think they might still be able to reach a firearm they have concealed, and their hands move at all, a stressed-out person could be forgiven for emptying his gun into his attacker.
Not Cool Hand George tho'.
Does firing one shot in the heart, rolling the body off you, getting up and holstering your firearm, and then steadily straddling the dying kid beneath you, sound like the actions of a person on the brink of consciousness and fighting for his life?
Wouldn't you expect a person who was really in such a stressful situation to shoot and then not stop pulling the trigger until the threat was over, once they were forced to reach for their gun?
Everywhere I've been on the web that discusses gun use sensibly says that if you have to pull out your firearm, 2 shots minimum centre mass is the way to go, and if you think they might still be able to reach a firearm they have concealed, and their hands move at all, a stressed-out person could be forgiven for emptying his gun into his attacker.
Not Cool Hand George tho'.
edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)
reply to post by IvanAstikov
We shouldn't be discussing it. It is as Zimmerman said. The reason we are discussing it is because idiots demonstrated because they had the information wrong due to the media so the thought there was an injustice when in reality there was none. Instead of admitting they were wrong those people, the media, and the politicians have kept it alive with lies. Much the same as you are doing.
Of course Zimmerman didn't expect to meet Trayvon. He thought the suspect was running to the back exit. That is natural because most likely he presumed the suspect was not from the neighborhood (he wasn't really, but he was staying there), so he didn't expect him to hang around inside, he expected him to run out and be gone.
We shouldn't be discussing it. It is as Zimmerman said. The reason we are discussing it is because idiots demonstrated because they had the information wrong due to the media so the thought there was an injustice when in reality there was none. Instead of admitting they were wrong those people, the media, and the politicians have kept it alive with lies. Much the same as you are doing.
Of course Zimmerman didn't expect to meet Trayvon. He thought the suspect was running to the back exit. That is natural because most likely he presumed the suspect was not from the neighborhood (he wasn't really, but he was staying there), so he didn't expect him to hang around inside, he expected him to run out and be gone.
reply to post by Xtrozero
I disagree completely. I would be very nervous about whipping out a gun when someone has overpowered and is beating the snot out of me. If they see they could grab your hand which is VERY VERY possible, then shoot you with your own gun.
I don't think he had anything but fear the whole time.
I disagree completely. I would be very nervous about whipping out a gun when someone has overpowered and is beating the snot out of me. If they see they could grab your hand which is VERY VERY possible, then shoot you with your own gun.
I don't think he had anything but fear the whole time.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Does firing one shot in the heart, rolling the body off you, getting up and holstering your firearm, and then steadily straddling the dying kid beneath you, sound like the actions of a person on the brink of consciousness and fighting for his life?
I can see the first part of your scenario, but do you have supporting evidence he "straddled the dying kid..."
Wouldn't you expect a person who was really in such a stressful situation to shoot and then not stop pulling the trigger until the threat was over, once they were forced to reach for their gun?
I have never been in that situation nor do I believe you have so I would say it is all assumption based on what you are told to believe.
Everywhere I've been on the web that discusses gun use sensibly says that if you have to pull out your firearm, 2 shots minimum centre mass is the way to go, and if you think they might still be able to reach a firearm they have concealed, and their hands move at all, a stressed-out person could be forgiven for emptying his gun into his attacker.
Training doesn't always equal a live scenario...sorry. What you were told is correct. What happens is not always tidy.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That doesn't matter. If someone knocked me down and started pounding my head into pavement, I would definitely be angry, as well as afraid for my life, but that would not negate my right to self defense.
I agree by the letter of the law Zimmerman was in the right, but once again he entered in the conflict knowing only he had a gun.
Absolutely untrue again. He had NO idea whether or not the other person had a gun when he got out. He didn't know Martin didn't have a weapon at any point. Plenty of fights where someone beat someone up and then pulled a gun out and executed them. You have a lot of misconceptions about the implications of Zimmerman having a gun. It wasn't an ace in the hole, it doesn't give you some intense bravery, it's just a last resort anyone would be nervous about pulling and shooting. It was something he had never done in his life with a lot of consequences.
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Okay, I'll defer to your greater knowledge on US law. Edumacate me - besides a helpful last minute confession from Zimmerman, tell me what you think the state would need to secure a conviction?
Okay, I'll defer to your greater knowledge on US law. Edumacate me - besides a helpful last minute confession from Zimmerman, tell me what you think the state would need to secure a conviction?
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Xtrozero
His "Get out of jail free" card for that is, he was so taken by surprise, he didn't even think of reaching for his gun for over 40 seconds, and only then because Trayvon said he wanted to use it, as his arms were getting tired, or something.,
Not so taken by surprise. Try so sucker punched and knocked senseless and then trying to keep from getting his brains bashed out until he could get his gun. 40 seconds isn't a long time, but someone could be beat to death in that time.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
You all know the funny statement... "You must be dumb to bring a knife to a gun fight" We'll Martin brought only fists to a gun fight and only Zimmerman knew it was a gun fight all along.
I'm just not convinced Zimmerman was fearing for his life...
Again, not true. Zimmerman had no way of knowing what the other person was carrying. He actually showed concern that Martin might have a gun on the 911 tape.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
His "Get out of jail free" card for that is, he was so taken by surprise, he didn't even think of reaching for his gun for over 40 seconds, and only then because Trayvon said he wanted to use it, as his arms were getting tired, or something.,
Was Martin trying to kill him? I think not, that is really pushing it to say he was out to kill Zimmerman. Was Martin trying to kick some cracker's ass...well ya... Is there a single person here convince that Martin was trying to kill him?
It is not pushing it at all. Banging someone's head against the sidewalk could very easily be considered attempted murder. By Zimmerman's account Martin said he was going to kill Zimmerman.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
he used his ace.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Xtrozero
...but once again he entered in the conflict knowing only he had a gun...
Pure speculation really. There is no way of knowing one is going to get into a fight. We can assume, we can even logically say after the fact, but there is no way of knowing that an altercation would occur or even escalate to the point where it became physical.
Zimmerman knew what he knew, but did not know that Martin wasn't also armed; as it turns out, Zimmerman was the only person armed. This doesn't mean that at some point, Zimmerman thought or didn't think that the person he was observing was or wasn't armed.edit on 11-7-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
No speculation here at all. Zimmerman knew he had a gun he could use at anytime. Martin didn't know he had a gun up until he got a bullet in the chest. So did Zimmerman pull his gun and use it because He thought Martin was going to pull a gun too? I think not. My point is that Martin was not out to kill Zimmerman at any point, but to just kick some weird cracker's ass (in his view) that erupted into a conflict. Zimmerman was not winning so he used his trump card.
I have carried a gun most of my life and I would never be in fear of a man with nothing but his hands. I would also not let it go until the guy was on top of me either, as I have said once a person knows he is up against a gun the situation changes quickly.
edit on 11-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
How was George supposed to know if the guy was out to kill him or beat him up? Why do you blather on about what Martin didn't know, but don't consider the opposing side.
Again Martin seemed to be out to kill Zimmerman, AND Zimmerman wasn't thinking he had an ace in the hole the whole time, that's ridiculous. He had no idea that Martin didn't have a gun.
Let me make this real simple for those who think that Zimmerman did not fear for his life... The fact of the matter is, there was a firearm in an
assault situation. Zimmerman should have feared for his life just for that reason alone. the fact that the firearm was legally there is very
important. the fact that the legal carrier of that firearm was attacked and lost control of the situation, made it life threatening. So simple yet so
difficult for many to understand. Lesson to be learned... Do not assault people, it is justified in many states to use leathal force to stop an
assault. It makes no matter past the point in of which zimmerman lost control of his ability to protect himself from his own firearm without using it.
All other details are moot.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Zimmerman supporters have been quite happy to let their imaginations run rampant )
Most ironic statement of the week. Made doubly ironic given who it is coming from.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Okay, I'll defer to your greater knowledge on US law. Edumacate me - besides a helpful last minute confession from Zimmerman, tell me what you think the state would need to secure a conviction?
They need to prove as I said; per the 2nd degree charge: "ill will, depraved mind or evil intent". That is the letter of the law for that charge. Intent is hard to prove, so we can throw that one out. Depraved mind again...hard to prove. So that leaves us with "ill will". The prosecution has been hammering away at this one with bringing up Mr. Zimmerman's past but hasn't quite nailed it.
On the other hand, Zimmerman's lawyers have sufficiently shown there is probable doubt to much of the prosecution's derived version of events that they cannot be true (or at least doubtful).
To secure a conviction they would have needed a witness who testified that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin (that went down in flames) and that the gunshot wound could have only been made from a position other than that which the two were witnessed in (regardless of position of the bodies).
Even if Zimmerman confronted Martin, it doesn't mean that Martin didn't just start wailing on Zimmerman. Again facts we can only assume or presume.
ETA:
It wouldn't be US law...it would be Florida law...and self-defense is self-defense; Zimmerman's stance is solid really.
edit on 11-7-2013 by
ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy
From the outset, Zimmerman has been responsible for providing an affirmative defence of his actions. He decided to let lawyers do it for him and now he is being tried by a jury. All the state was required to do was poke enough holes in Zimmerman's story as related by lawyers and those with a vested interest in it, then leave the rest to the jury. The state doesn't have to prove where and how Zimmerman said it happened is a definite lie, just that when taking all other facts into account it is likely to be one.edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)
You don't understand how a trial works. You illustrated that perfectly in the post. Maybe you don't understand jury instructions, but it will be VERY clear to them that they only consider doubt in the prosecutions story NOT the defenses. The prosecution didn't really poke holes in Zimmerman's story like you want to believe, but even if they had the prosecutions own story is the weakest thing I have ever seen and there is literally no way a competent jury wouldn't doubt it. Luckily there are 6.
reply to post by IvanAstikov
Actually it shows that George used restraint and had no ill will or depraved mind. If he was furious I think he would unload don't you? He pulled the trigger and the attack stopped whether he thought he hit the kid or the kid froze and stopped out of fear, it doesn't matter.
I think it's funny how you want Zimmerman to be wrong. You say he's a coward, the neighbor was a coward, Zimmerman was incompetent by not shooting twice and did that wrong, etc, etc.
Face the facts man.
Actually it shows that George used restraint and had no ill will or depraved mind. If he was furious I think he would unload don't you? He pulled the trigger and the attack stopped whether he thought he hit the kid or the kid froze and stopped out of fear, it doesn't matter.
I think it's funny how you want Zimmerman to be wrong. You say he's a coward, the neighbor was a coward, Zimmerman was incompetent by not shooting twice and did that wrong, etc, etc.
Face the facts man.
reply to post by ownbestenemy
1. George's own testimony and one witness.
2. I have been in worse situations, without a convenient firearm to help me out. I've been sucker-bricked, not punched, and still got the better of my attacker. That's not because I'm in the SAS, or have trained to withstand bricks to the head, it's because I REFUSE to be a victim to anyone. And I've never needed a gun to feel that way. I just might become a cropper one day, but if I'm given a chance to go out fighting, I know I will. Now, I fully recognise that some people neither have the will or the physical ability to ever even think of relying on anything other than a firearm to defend themself, but a firearm isn't meant to be a shortcut if you've started crap you can't really handle.
3. Seems like a lot of people are wasting a lot of money down at the firing range, if that's the case. If you can't even trust yourself to be able to keep hold of your gun if you are taken by surprise and then react as you've been taught, it's probably safer if you leave your gun at home.
1. George's own testimony and one witness.
2. I have been in worse situations, without a convenient firearm to help me out. I've been sucker-bricked, not punched, and still got the better of my attacker. That's not because I'm in the SAS, or have trained to withstand bricks to the head, it's because I REFUSE to be a victim to anyone. And I've never needed a gun to feel that way. I just might become a cropper one day, but if I'm given a chance to go out fighting, I know I will. Now, I fully recognise that some people neither have the will or the physical ability to ever even think of relying on anything other than a firearm to defend themself, but a firearm isn't meant to be a shortcut if you've started crap you can't really handle.
3. Seems like a lot of people are wasting a lot of money down at the firing range, if that's the case. If you can't even trust yourself to be able to keep hold of your gun if you are taken by surprise and then react as you've been taught, it's probably safer if you leave your gun at home.