It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Fromabove
This thread it to ask all of those on the ATS to render their judgment on George Zimmerman as to the first charge of first degree murder and the second charge of manslaughter.
Astonishingly, Martin's hands were washed before any DNA test was made.
1. There was no Zimmerman DNA (blood or sweat) found on Martins hands or fingernails, which Zimmerman claimed he used to punch him, hold his nose and mouth closed, and slam his head against the sidewalk.
Well, the "He took the law into his own hands." Is a conclusion, not evidence. I disagree with the conclusion. As for the rest of it, so what? Was any of that illegal or proof of illegality? No.
4. Zimmerman wanted desperately to be a cop and get the bad guys who "always get away"
5. Zimmerman followed Martin, carried a gun and didn't announce that he was Neighborhood Watch.
6. Zimmerman profiled Martin as a "suspect" and a criminal, and took the law into his own hands.
First that doesn't mean he didn't fight back. If someone punches me in the stomach through my sweatshirt, they're not going to have damage to their hands either. Secondly, if he didn't fight back, so what?
8. There was NO damage to Zimmerman's hands. Meaning, in all that time that Martin was supposedly smashing his head on the concrete, covering his mouth and nose, and hitting him time and time again, Zimmerman never once fought back.
The medical witnesses, called by the prosecution, said Martin probably lived for 10-15 seconds after being shot. Death wasn't instantaneous.
7. Zimmerman said he spread Martin's hands after he killed him, but Martin's hands were underneath him.
9. Supposedly, Zimmerman shot Martin, and then re-holstered his weapon and jumped on top of Martin., because he wasn't dead...
Martin was not an innocent, doing nothing wrong. He was in the process of killing Zimmerman by smashing his head. Zimmerman didn't have to be a law officer to defend himself. And he did call the police, remember the taped 911 call?
He killed an innocent young man. He was not a law officer. The kid was not doing anything wrong. He could have called the police on the kids if he was really worried.
"Confrontation?" A confrontation is two people yelling at each other, not one guy punching another to the ground then bashing his head into a sidewalk without getting injured himself. (Leaving aside for the moment, that rather nasty hole.)
He suspiciously followed the kid leading into a confrontation.
What are you implying? Do you think this was race based? There's a ton of testimony from whites and blacks saying that's not the case.
If this event transpired the other way around, (the kid on neighborhood watch, and zimmerman 'a suspicious fellow' in the neighborhood, the kid would be guilty for his actions).
Are you calling it an accident? What part of this was an accident? Zimmerman was intending to shoot Martin, Martin was intent on bashing in Zimmerman's head. Only Zimmerman was ultimately successful.
Justice for the loss of this kids life must be served in some manner, as much of a bad situation and accident as this was, accidentally killing someone when the situation could have been prevented, still should have a punishment in some sense.
Yes, I think Zimmerman should walk based on self-defense, and "stand your ground" has never been a part of this case.
Ive heard talk of stand your own ground and self defense and people using these terms to claim zimmerman is innocent and should walk a free man.
No. they wouldn't. There is no evidence that Martin was in fear of his life or serious bodily injury, and he could have gotten off Zimmerman and run away. He couldn't claim self-defense.
If that is the case, then those same people would have to agree that if the kid killed zimmerman, the kid would be innocent and a free man for standing his own ground and defending himself.
The bottom line is that it has been proven that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. You can not couch that in terms of : "Oh he was just tracking him" "Oh, he was just seeing where he was going" "He was just looking for a street name or an address".
The evidence shows different. It was proven today in closing arguments when Zimmerman went through his walk through that he knew the name of the street. He stated it, it is on a recording. You cannot reconcile that with his previous nor his subsequent statements. He knew the name of the street and slipped and stated so.
On the bs excuse he was looking for an address: Seriously, you are going to ask 6 intelligent women to buy the story he was looking for an address, while he was directly in front of one.
Not. Gonna. Fly.
How did Trayvon reach for his gun when it has been clearly demonstrated that the gun was on his right backside?? Zimmerman comes up with this incredulous story that his shirt and jacket lifted up and Trayvon saw the weapon he was laying on?? How would you have even come to that conclusion in the heat of a battle?? So he observed Trayvon see his rebolver?? That was his story from the get.
His knees were under his armpits. Oh really?? How did Zimmerman reach for the gun?? That was demonstrated today.
It was a concocted story from the beginning.
It was re-emphasized today how Zimmerman slipped up and said, "When I went towards him..." then he switched up real quick when he caught himself.
Do NOT think that was lost on the jury. They get it!!
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed and approached Trayvon. What happened after that will be a discussion for years to come. I don't know who hit who first but I would venture a guess that Trayvon felt threatened by Zimmerman and didn't know what his trip was.
Trayvon had a right to stand his ground. My kids have been taught to protect themselves.
Getting pummeled in a fist fight is no reason to pull a gun. NONE. It was proven by the defense's own witness that Zimmerman's head was not being slammed into the ground but more likely hit the ground as a result of punches to his melon.
Do NOT underestimate these women. They saw the performances by the defendant's close friends and family, they know what they have invested here. And don't think for one minute that they haven't asked themselves the same question, "Would I lie to help my son, nephew, best friend." Every mother will tell you that they would, especially in a case such as this.
On edit: Don't think the jury didn't witness again the bs story Zimmerman gave on the Hannity show about "skipping". They get it. They have his number.
I have said it. I go on record.
(Well and the eye witness testimony.) And that's the prosecution's problem. There is evidence pointing towards a theory of self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense in order to convict him. Unfortunately, from their point of view, they can't prove it wasn't self-defense. so any conviction will be based on the jurors' sympathy or fear, and not the facts and the law.
There no doubt that Z fired on M. That is established. The only other physical evidence is the scene, the trauma, & the 911 call.