giddy, you've been told this several times in this thread. Apparently you don't want to let it sink in. I'll mention just a few of them off the top of my head. GZ saying that Martin circled his car, and then disappeared into the night. GZ saying that he only got of the car to check an address. GZ telling Hannity that he had no familiarity of the Stand Your Ground law, then hearing from the instructor in a class on Stand your ground law. Then there's GZ's talk about what Martin said to him. That was laughable. Nobody talks like that unless they are the bad guys in a Die Hard move or something. TM saying What the F.... is your problem homie? Well now you've got a problem. You're going to die tonight. And then when GZ shoots him Martin says, "You got me..." Nice to know that TM sounds like the bad guy from a Batman movie than 17 year old teenager... especially one that supposedly had all the trouble and fights he had. Troubled teens don't talk like that. I don't necessarily even think the prosecution proved their case, but GZ's version is just full of wholes and GZ has lied and been inconsistent in his stories.
Actually those are the facts we know happened when we admit zimmerman started this by following martin.
You're going to need to backup these accused statements with actual quotes. Everyone in this thread has restated quotes incorrectly. Of course, the most notorious being "we don't need you to do that" to "do not follow him, I am an officer of the law". I am not saying he didn't say these things, but it really seems like some people are pulling random quotes theyve heard from yahoo comments or something.
The problem is that none of this is very impressive. Nothing is forensic in nature. You don't like the way GZ recalls TM speaking... that is supposed to be contradictory evidence? Frankly, it wouldn't matter if GZ wrote the Stand Your Ground Law. It's inhuman to be making split-second decisions based on what the law may or may not say. As usual, you take the side you don't sympathize with to the Nth Degree of Ridiculous and keep pounding it. Eyewitness testimony is by-and-large unreliable. Testimony by the participants of an intense struggle is even less so I would imagine.
Zimmerman claims that TM grabbed his gun, yet there is no trace of TM's DNA or fingerprints on the gun or holster. Start there and work your way back.
I thought Zimmerman has his gun in his waistband. Was Zimmerman lying about not having a holster? There is a difference between "grabbing for the gun", "thought he grabbed the gun" and "actually grabbing the gun". Which one is it? Please provide a direct quote(s) from Zimmerman. And this isn't CSI. Even if Martin "touched" it, it doesn't mean they would 100% certainty find DNA. I hope I am never in a situation like this. I would be the worst witness. I am sure my story would have at least a couple holes in it.
Mark Osterman, Zimmerman's friend who has defended Zimmerman through this entire ordeal testified that Zimmerman told him that Martin grabbed the gun and Zimmerman told him that night that he broke Martin's grip on the gun. So either Zimmerman is lying or Osterman is lying about what Zimmerman told him the night of the shooting. Take your pick.
BTW, testimony showed that Martin could have grasped the gun without leaving any DNA on the metal surface ... for what it's worth.
Very simple. TM's hands never actually have to touch the gun for him to be "going for it." GZ's hands were there first and TM tried to wrest it away unsuccessfully. It's obvious that the gun was in GZ's hand. Mine is a simpler explanation than yours that TM had ahold of it and GZ wrested it away without the gun going off...
Had we a video of what actually went on, I'm sure it is in error, but you guys are trying to make it out as a total fabrication. Make a mountain out of a molehill on trivial details if you want.
Your version is in conflict with the account of Mark Osterman, Zimmerman's friend that he spent the evening with after the incident. Osterman has testified that Zimmerman told him he has to wrest the gun out of Martin's grip. So, again, it is not my version of events. It is Zimmerman's as relayed by Osterman under oath in open court.
As MadMax eluded to earlier, it is trivial details and tangents that decide cases. If the jury feels that Zimmerman is not truthful, and they use that to reject his self defense claim, all they have left is that he shot the kid.
Hard evidence isn't a requirement. There's this reasonable doubt part involved that justifies conviction. The evidence is a kid who was killed by a person who admittedly pursued him without merit. Following someone isn't a crime, but negligence can certainly be criminal. Chasing private citizens while carrying a loaded weapon because of their disposition is not reasonably prudent behavior, and an aggressive response should be expected. Kermit Washington wasn't thrown in jail for destroying Rudy-T's face, because he was reacting to a person who was charging at him from behind. Strangers have a bad reputation, so when one of them is charging a person, reasonable foresight would tell you that fight or flight is the most likely response. I've said that second degree murder is an excessive charge based on the evidence at hand, but criminally negligent manslaughter is evident based on Zimmermans account & the hard evidence at hand. Saying he should walk without penalty is not defending his rights. It's defending the notion that people can rightfully provoke a confrontation, and are then use deadly force whenever the person they are harassing takes the bait. There's no reason to doubt that Zimmerman knew how people react to being followed by strangers. It's the same kind of irrational decision making that had him following one in the first place.
The defendant's friend *could* have gotten it wrong that the defendant told him the victim grabbed the gun; the victim's fingerprints or DNA *could* have not stuck to the gun he supposedly grabbed... interesting to see how evidence in the case get ignored or casually explained away by people who supposedly are only basing their opinions on the evidence in the case. At least I admit it... I think Zimmerman needlessly killed Martin and I think he will get away with it. I am not a jurist on the trial, so I don't need to base my opinion only on the evidence that is allowed in the trial. I can base my opinion on evidence that was not allowed. I don't need to base my opinion on "without a reasonable doubt". I can base it on what I have read and heard. And... I can base it on what I believe to be true. Just like I believe OJ Simpson killed two people, I believe Zimmerman killed Martin, and not in self defense, and not "standing his ground." And just like OJ Simpson, Zimmerman will walk free.
ABC’s Dan Abrams: “Don’t See How Jury Convicts” Zimmerman That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. ---------------
Whew...a legal analyst for ABC said it, so it must be all over. I remember that everybody on earth thought OJ would be convicted. You just can't predict how a jury of 12 will interpret the evidence.
Which is also what he said. But to the best of his understanding, he doesn't see how the prosecutions case can convict GZ.
He also said it does not mean Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin and does not mean Zimmerman was right.
