General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (ZRT2209) on Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:27 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wercal
(1,370 posts)And should help the prosecution.
I don't think the lack of dna means much. Martin obviously hit Zimmerman, as evidenced by the cut on his knuckle and Zimmerman's bloody nose. If there's no dna from that (washed off in the rain?), one wouldn't expect dna from any other contact.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)especially after giving Zimmerman a bloody nose, it would be reasonable to expect some blood spatter on Martin's clothes.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Because witnesses reported a fight...and NOBODY involved in the case has disputed there was a fight.
I can't explain the lack of dna....nobody can...but its fairly well accepted that there was an altercation. The prosection mentioned it in their opening arguments.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)ErikwithaK
(2 posts)
pacalo
(24,857 posts)
targetpractice
(4,919 posts)The procedure is designed to find and amplify just a very few molecules. From what I understand, it would be exceedingly rare (yet still possible) for Trayvon to have made skin-on-skin contact that broke Zimmerman's skin without leaving a couple of molecules of Zimmerman's DNA behind... despite the rain.
The case seems simple for me... But for Zimmerman following Trayvon that night, Trayvon would still be alive.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)piedmont
(3,462 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)People shed cells constantly. They don't shed sections of DNA.
piedmont
(3,462 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)you don't amplify the cells.
Now, you need to find a few cells for the dna that is inside them, but you separate out the dna molecules and amplify the molecules.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)assuming the cells are even intact. Cells disintegrate over time, so may not be intact when you receive a specimen to workup. And when you are working up a specimen, you are looking for the dna, not the individual cells.
The poster you were trying to nitpick was essentially correct in saying you need to find and amplify molecules because you do need to do that. I suggest you give it a rest.
niyad
(132,440 posts)to his nose (which would have produced much more blood), but from his glasses against the bridge of his nose) and who knows how that happened.
wercal
(1,370 posts)But why on earth would the autopsy report include information about Zimmerman's nose? That makes no sense.
niyad
(132,440 posts)supposedly broke his nose as he repeatedly bashed zimmy's head against the concrete. no evidence of any of zimmy's dna on martin, which, had he broken zimmy's nose, would have produced a LOT of blood.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Why the autopsy report would itemize injuries to Zimmerman's nose. Do you have a link to this autopsy report?
niyad
(132,440 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)And you haven't explained anything.
You stated that the AUTOPSY report described the injury to Zimmerman's nose...all I need is a link to this report, and I will gain a full understanding.
Until them I will remain flabbergasted, because I always thought autopsy reports described the deceased.
niyad
(132,440 posts)
nolabear
(43,850 posts)Serious question; it may well for some reason I don't comprehend.
How the Medical Examiner/Coroner in the morgue with only Travon Martin's body there for examination can come to any conclusions at all about how George Zimmerman (who was: still alive, not having an autopsy performed on him, and not in the morgue) got any wounds.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Where did you read an autopsy report regarding the examination of Trayvon Martin's body, that contained ANY information about ANY other person, especially the suspect of the murder investigation relating directly to the autopsy being performed ?
I'm curious about the nose bleed evidence you are talking about, but I don't think it was in an autopsy report.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Specifically, here is your statement:
"If I remember the autopsy report correctly, the blood under zimmy's nose came, not from a hit"
I'm incredulous, because autopsy reports are for dead people.
Where is the link to this very, very strange autopsy report?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Melinda
(5,465 posts)LE and Medical Examiners exist independently but work in conjunction to collect forensic evidence. The presence or lack of Zimmerman's DNA is in fact evidentiary in nature. If this isn't enough of an explanation, than I suggest you use google.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)That is not what an autopsy would show.
zimmy wasn't dead, so he would not appear on the coroner's autopsy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)An autopsy — also known as a post-mortem examination, necropsy (particularly as to non-human bodies), autopsia cadaverum, or obduction — is a highly specialized surgical procedure that consists of a thorough examination of a corpse to determine the cause and manner of death and to evaluate any disease or injury that may be present. It is usually performed by a specialized medical doctor called a pathologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopsy
post-mortem means after death. "a thorough examination of a corpse."
Zimmerman's nose would not have been included in the autopsy report.
auntsue
(277 posts)Zimmerman says he was straddling Martin - who was found face down. Is it possible the injuries to his face occurred because Travon jerked his head back? I was trained as a part of working with emotionally disturbed kids to avoid getting too close as a kid in a tantrum will try to bash you with their head.
I can't explain the back of the head injury though..............unless they rolled around on concrete.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)That's what I thought. The kick back is what hit him in the face.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)or the gun. There is no "obviously" in this point.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Possibly the kick back from his gun hit him in his face. That makes more sense than Trayvon hitting him in the nose.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Come on.
I am going to say this until I am blue in the face.
The prosecution did not object on Monday, when the defense stated as fact that Martin had punched Zimmerman.
So the prosecution does not know about all these alternative theories; and, you should send them an e-mail to set them straight.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)if that lying murderer's account was true, martin should have had zimmerman's dna on his hands. and since zimmerman's dna was not found on martin's hands: zimmerman is lying. that's cystal clear...unless you want to continue supporting a liar and a murderer for some unknown reason.
Rex
(65,616 posts)are when you should object the most! 
Now you will hear *Crickets* from said poster.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)these are too obvious
Rex
(65,616 posts)No details about the hashing...but it sure seems like the effort is going to pay off this time. NOT. 
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but a particularly dense asshole 
wercal
(1,370 posts)Where was Martin found? Face down with his hands underneath him in the wet grass.
Did the police bag Martin's hands? No.
Did they leave the body in the rain, partially covered by a tarp, while they waited for the medical examiner? Yes.
So you really believe that no punch was thrown? Even though a 911 caller described in real time one person was punching another? And one person has a scratch on his knuckle, while the other has a bloody nose? If you want to believe that, fine, I can't help you.
The prosecution has never disputed that Martin punched Zimmerman...but you do, with your expert DNA knowledge.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Zimmerman claimed that Martin smothered him with one hand. That would have left spittle on that hand and likely in between fingers as well.
His body was face down with his hands under him. Most likely the palm-side of his hands would have been protected with the backs against the grass.
While his body was turned over by the police when they tried CPR, it seems unlikely that all the spittle would have been wiped off on the grass. PCR requires minute amounts specimen.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the dna disappeared because it was raining 
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Zimmerman's claims, by specifying the lack of
evidence that this happened, specifically no
real damage to hands and no Zim dna.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)with Martin on top of him. So considering lying on your back and shooting up at somebody to hit them in the chest, then due to the awkward position yes, it seems possible the kickback could cause the gun to hit him in the face.
That said, I don't think it really matters whether Zimmerman's bloody nose came from a punch or kickback from his gun, and that's why the prosecutor didn't bother to go there. It doesn't matter that Martin defended himself. The prosecution appears to have strong evidence that Zimmerman by his own admission followed Martin and various witnesses heard and saw the chase, the fight and the shooting.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...tm was right handed
wercal
(1,370 posts)It is obvious. There were witnesses stating there was a fight, as it happened in real time...and Zimmerman ends up with a bloody nose.
Seriously, who else punched Zimmerman?
Now, on Monday, the defense stated this as fact...with absolutely no objection from the prosecution. So you must know something the don't know, right?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I bloodied my own nose once on the door frame getting out of the car too quickly. Not all injuries necessarily come from others... sometimes we can be clumsy enough to hurt our own person. Didn't get anyone's DNA on me either when it happened... 
wercal
(1,370 posts)Look, there are too many theories and luny ideas, to have a serious discussion about the case.
Let's back up:
On Monday, the defense stated that Martin punched Zimmerman in court.
The prosecution did not object to this statement being made as fact.
Why? Because any reasonable person understands that is exactly what happened.
It doesn't have to be that complicated.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)reasonalbe people understand exactly what happened. and overzealous cop wannabe stalked and murdered a black teenager, then concocted a story about a fight to save his miserable ass from a murder charge. unreasonable people continue to claim martin beat zimmerman, even though zommerman's dna was not found on martin's hands. reasonable people would conclude: zimmerman is and has been lying about what happened that night.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Many reasonable people see things very differently.
You are paying yourself too high a compliment,
pretending to speak for reasonable humankind.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...the simplest conclusion seeing there's NONE of Z's blood on TM and there IS Z's blood on Z's own gun...
wercal
(1,370 posts)I don't understand you statement...the presence of Z's blood on his gun means a fight didn't happen? Even though witnesses in real time were describing a fight?
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)A bloody nose, even after a fight, does not mean he got punched in the face.
wercal
(1,370 posts)On Monday, the prosecution stood idly by, as the defense stated, in court, as fact that Martin punch Zimmerman.
They did not object.
If you have a theory that points to this being false, you should e-mail the prosecution and let them know. Because, absent your advice, they seem content to let it rest as fact, that a punch was thrown.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
wercal
(1,370 posts)I certainly hope that if the defense makes a statement in front of the jury that is grossly inaccurate, the prosecution would object, right?
Happens every day across this great land.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You are funny, keep trying!
EDIT - NO? NOTHING? NO comeback?
Go back to google and look for something else now. You got caught on that one.
I don't have time to answer the same nonsense twice.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Happens all the time on this site.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Martin punched Zimmerman.
Everybody involved with the case has accepted this as fact.
But because I don't believe the following fantaisies that have been prsented on this thread:
The sidewalk scratched Martin's hand
The sidewalk hurt Zimmerman's nose
Zimmerman deliberately hurt his own nose
Zimmerman fell backwards and hurt the back of his head
The gun recoil hurt Zimmerman's nose
I am the one making stuff up?
Get.A.Grip.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Just everybody with an unclouded mind.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)OK, my post. I see it. I think Rex did also.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)But you're right, I just don't understand.
And there was that little bit about the week long period where the defense and the prosecution and the judge hashed out exactly what was and wasn't allowed in opening arguments.
But I guess this just slipped through the cracks.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)is an odd time during a jury. It is the one time when they can be subjective and things will come through that are not necessarily able to be proven.
Rex
(65,616 posts)not that I read volumes about legal cases. Opening statement, closing statement - the time to be the most subjective you can to try and sway the jury.
wercal
(1,370 posts)The prosecution and defnse negotiated and lobbied the judge for a week, concerning what could and could not be presented in the opening arguments.
Here is an example:
The prosecution OBJECTED to the Defense bringing up Martin's twitter posts about drug use. The court agreed. This was a national news story, that got a line or a mention on every network and radio station I listen to. I hope you caught it.
Why then, if the punch is such a lie, would the prosecution NOT OBJECT to its being mentioned.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)facts but of what they hope to persuade the jurors are the facts.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Why did the prosecution OBJECT to the twitter feed, but not a punch, which the CSI's here clearly know is an outright lie?
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)(clip)
Third, effective opening statements take advantage of persuasive techniques such as rhetorical questions and inoculation strategies, carefully weaving them into the fabric of the presentation. Rhetorical questions help persuasion by guiding the jurors' search for answers and, in some cases, implying answers on their own. For strong cases, placing rhetorical questions near the beginning of the presentation or subdivision of the statement fosters persuasion because the answers will be forthcoming. However, for weak cases, rhetorical questions placed in the beginning of the presentation reduce persuasion because the answers to these questions are either not forthcoming or are equivocal. Rhetorical questions are also effective when placed near the end of the presentation when they address the weak points of the opponent's case.
Inoculation is a technique which increases the resistance to persuasion. As the name implies, this technique is analogous to the medical technique of inoculating patients to increase their resistance to disease. Inoculation in persuasion occurs by exposing jurors to a weakened version of the opponent's arguments and successfully refuting these arguments, thus making the jurors aware of counterarguments to the opponent's position. When the opponent later raises the argument, jurors are able to more successfully resist it.
Fourth, persuasive opening statements enable the jurors to see the case from the client's perspective. They take jurors from the realm of the outside observer to that of an actor in the event being recreated by describing the events as seen through the client's eyes. This shift in focus enables jurors to have greater empathy for the client. Obviously, jurors cannot be asked to "put themselves in the party's shoes." However, jurors will be placed in those shoes by an opening statement that effectively walks them through the case....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_statement
Opening statements are, in theory, not allowed to be argumentative, or suggest the inferences that fact-finders should draw from the evidence they will hear. In actual practice, the line between statement and argument is often unclear and many attorneys will infuse at least a little argumentation into their opening (often prefacing borderline arguments with some variation on the phrase, "As we will show you..."
. Objections, though permissible during opening statements, are very unusual, and by professional courtesy are usually reserved only for egregious conduct.
Generally, the prosecution in a criminal case and plaintiff in a civil case is the first to offer an opening statement, and defendants go second. Defendants are also allowed the option of delaying their opening statement until after the close of the prosecution or plaintiff's case. Few take this option, however, so as not to allow the other party's argument to stand uncontradicted for so long.
wercal
(1,370 posts)The part that proved you wrong?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)since they did not in any way influence Zimmerman's decision to shoot Martin. And that is because Zimmerman did not know anything about Martin's past or even who Martin was on the night of the shooting. There is no evidence that Zimmerman had seen or heard of Martin before that night. So the evidence about Martin's past is irrelevant. I don't know why Zimmerman's attorney eve wanted to introduce it. Kind of a waste of time really.
Zimmerman's past is relevant because it could cast light on Zimmerman's frame of mind at the time of the shooting. Zimmerman brought the gun and shot it. Martin brought a bag of Skittles and a cell phone.
wercal
(1,370 posts)and the judge about what was permissable in the opening statements?
And yet the prosecution never lodged any objection to the notion that Martin punched Zimmerman.
Must have been an oversight.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Opening statements are typically filled with things that do not have proof. They jump to conclusions based on some factors and leave out others. Again, I do not think you understand what Opening Statements are about.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They are done...stick a fork in em!
wercal
(1,370 posts)If the prosecution knew, based on the CSI knowledge gathered by junior detectives on this thread, that the punch was an absolute lie - they have an obligation to object to its being brought up in court.
Of course it isn't a lie. Any reasonable person can put two and two together. Martin hit Zimmerman.
I will make a prediction to you. The prosecution will never challenge this in court. They will make vague statements that nobody knows how the fight started, but they will never outright suggest that Zimmerman threw the first punch.
You know why? Because it is very obvious to the unclouded mind that Martin punched Zimmerman.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Repeatedly saying that everyone who thinks differently
from you has a clouded mind, and is unreasonable,
only makes you sound insecure, & not too bright.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)backed up by evidence or witnesses. The prosecution
has based part of their case on the unreliability
of his version of things. Go back and watch the
Prosecution opening statement, if you haven't
already, or watch it again. He gets pretty specific.
The prosecution doesn't need to object to each
claim. They can afford to let the defense hang
itself, my opinion.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Funny how that is just a standard operating procedure. The poster has nothing but air and vapors to grasp hold of.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)They are not presentations of fact but slanted. Objections happen during the trial when witnesses testify. During opening statements, each side has a turn to say what THEY are going to TRY and convince the jurors what happened. Hence each lawyer gets to sit and listen to the other spin things their way.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Is all you will hear now. They are busy rushing back to google to look for something else.
They got caught.
Busted.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Since the court didn't spend a week hashing out what could or could not be stated in opening statements.
Oh wait...they did.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Really, nice try! I guess you will keep on trying. Goodluck!
wercal
(1,370 posts)That there was no prohibition on the defense stating that Martin punched Zimmerman, since that was allowed.
And quite frankly, every stinking detail of this procedure was broadcast nightly on the news...but maybe they forgot to report on this part.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)trial that attorneys are pretty much allowed free reign to say whatever they want within those rules. If the rule didn't prohibit something, they can say it. And the rules do not prohibit everything. Opening statements are "I am going to try to prove to you that....". They are not proof. They are trying to sway the jury with emotions. I will not say there has never been an objection during an opening statement, but once the rules are hashed out, they are free to be as subjective and emotional as they want.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Do you know?
I do. Because last week it was a major news story.
The prosecution OBJECTED to its being brought up.
The judge agreed.
And we heard nothing about it in the opening statements.
No news story about any similar OBJECTION to using the punch in the opening statement.
And, it was used - obviously because the prosecution had no OBJECTION.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)The Opening statement is not a presentation of facts and there are some things which are not excluded. The jury is supposed to listen to evidence presented during the trial. The Opening Statement is not evidence.
http://www.nlrg.com/our-services/jury-research-division/jury-research-publications/persuasion-at-trial-opening-statements/
(clip)
Third, effective opening statements take advantage of persuasive techniques such as rhetorical questions and inoculation strategies, carefully weaving them into the fabric of the presentation. Rhetorical questions help persuasion by guiding the jurors' search for answers and, in some cases, implying answers on their own. For strong cases, placing rhetorical questions near the beginning of the presentation or subdivision of the statement fosters persuasion because the answers will be forthcoming. However, for weak cases, rhetorical questions placed in the beginning of the presentation reduce persuasion because the answers to these questions are either not forthcoming or are equivocal. Rhetorical questions are also effective when placed near the end of the presentation when they address the weak points of the opponent's case.
Inoculation is a technique which increases the resistance to persuasion. As the name implies, this technique is analogous to the medical technique of inoculating patients to increase their resistance to disease. Inoculation in persuasion occurs by exposing jurors to a weakened version of the opponent's arguments and successfully refuting these arguments, thus making the jurors aware of counterarguments to the opponent's position. When the opponent later raises the argument, jurors are able to more successfully resist it.
Fourth, persuasive opening statements enable the jurors to see the case from the client's perspective. They take jurors from the realm of the outside observer to that of an actor in the event being recreated by describing the events as seen through the client's eyes. This shift in focus enables jurors to have greater empathy for the client. Obviously, jurors cannot be asked to "put themselves in the party's shoes." However, jurors will be placed in those shoes by an opening statement that effectively walks them through the case....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_statement
Opening statements are, in theory, not allowed to be argumentative, or suggest the inferences that fact-finders should draw from the evidence they will hear. In actual practice, the line between statement and argument is often unclear and many attorneys will infuse at least a little argumentation into their opening (often prefacing borderline arguments with some variation on the phrase, "As we will show you..."
. Objections, though permissible during opening statements, are very unusual, and by professional courtesy are usually reserved only for egregious conduct.
Generally, the prosecution in a criminal case and plaintiff in a civil case is the first to offer an opening statement, and defendants go second. Defendants are also allowed the option of delaying their opening statement until after the close of the prosecution or plaintiff's case. Few take this option, however, so as not to allow the other party's argument to stand uncontradicted for so long.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The jury was not there. The judge was deciding based on procedural rules and law what evidence and allegations are to be admitted. He was making decisions based on the law. He was excluding or admitting facts based on the rules of the courts and the laws of evidence. He was not deciding which version of the facts is true. That is not his (in this case her) job.
As I explained, during a trial the attorneys present their different theories about the case. They also present evidence including witnesses and physical evidence hoping that the evidence they present will "prove" their view of the case and the issues.
The jury sees and hears the evidence, deliberates, may sometimes ask questions and then decides which facts are true and which are not and draws its conclusions and ultimately arrives at a verdict -- if it can.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)The reason the defense can say in their opening statement that Trayvon Martin punched George Zimmerman is because that is a disputed fact in the case. If you read Article III of the Constitution, you'll find that the courts were created to hear cases and controversies. One of the controversies in this case is whether Martin attacked Zimmerman or visa versa. Therefore it is germane to the defense and so they are able to talk about it in their opening statement, which is dedicated to laying out each side's theory of the case, without objection.
The reason the defense can't use Martin's texts concerning marijuana use is because according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, character evidence may only be used under specific circumstances - usually when one side accuses the other of doing the same type of thing first or when the character evidence has a direct bearing on the immediate case. So long as the prosecution doesn't claim Zimmerman is an illegal drug user, it is unlikely that this evidence against Martin would be useful for any purpose other than to prejudice the jury against him.
There is no "obvious" answer to whether Martin punched Zimmerman because you weren't there and, more importantly, neither were the judge and jury. That is why there is a trial going on. Instead of demanding that you have all the answers, perhaps you can just agree on what has been established: George Martin's gun fired a bullet that killed Trayvon Martin. None of Zimmerman's DNA has been found on Martin. After that, why not let the jury decide based on legal evidence instead of your "gotcha" theories?
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)foolish me getting sucked in 
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Good luck in avoiding the trolls.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is to the defense a "fact," but the evidence is now being presented. Much more will be presented, so the defense "fact" may or may not be disproved.
An opening statement is generally the first occasion that the trier of fact (jury or judge) has to hear from a lawyer in a trial, aside possibly from questioning during voir dire. The opening statement is generally constructed to serve as a "road map" for the fact-finder. This is especially essential, in many jury trials, since jurors (at least theoretically) know nothing at all about the case before the trial, (or if they do, they are strictly instructed by the judge to put preconceived notions aside). Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial. Attorneys generally conclude opening statements with a reminder that at the conclusion of evidence, the attorney will return to ask the fact-finder to find in his or her client's favor. See, http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/RealLifeScenarios/TextingWhileDriving/DifferencesBetweenOpeningAndClosingArgs.aspx.
Opening statements are, in theory, not allowed to be argumentative, or suggest the inferences that fact-finders should draw from the evidence they will hear. In actual practice, the line between statement and argument is often unclear and many attorneys will infuse at least a little argumentation into their opening (often prefacing borderline arguments with some variation on the phrase, "As we will show you..." . Objections, though permissible during opening statements, are very unusual, and by professional courtesy are usually reserved only for egregious conduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_statement
"Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial."
The defense will present its evidence and claim that evidence means that Martin hit Zimmerman. If there is evidence to the contrary, the prosecutor will present that.
The jury is also known as the "trier of fact." (The judge is the trier of law.) The jury reviews the evidence and decides which facts are "true." The judge reviews the law and decides what law applies.
That's how trials work. If the prosecutor and defense attorneys agreed on all the facts, the trial would be very simple. The jury would not have to decide so many facts.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)(or the opposite of that.. same point)
Unlikely this cut came from hitting Zimmerman
unless his other hand/arm was being restrained.
Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin's right
arm, Martin reacted with his left hand and
hit Zim's glasses which caused the cut on
nose.. seems likely
lumpy
(13,704 posts)to try and protect myself. Does it really matter that much anyway if Martin had struck back?. Why was Zimmerman afraid for his life that he had to pull out his gun? No evidence that Martin had anything other that his fists for protection, no knife or any other potential weapon. It is Zimmermans fault if his ego got the better of him and didn't listen to advice he was given to let the police do their job.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)It's entirely possible that Zimmerman's very minor wounds were a result of him falling on his back after he shot his gun, tripping, or even self-inflicted to give himself an excuse for shooting and killing an unarmed teenager.
I'm not impressed at all by Zimmerman's "injuries." He brought them on himself and while murdering a child.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Martin had a cut on his hand.
Zimmerman had a busted nose.
Witnesses stated there was a fight.
I'm a simpleton and conclude Martin punched Zimmerman....not advanced enough to come up with theories about Zimmerman deliberately smashing his own nose in, somehow without any of the witnesses noticing.
Maybe you should send your theories to the prosecution...because they did not object on Monday, when the defense stated as fact that Martin punched Zimmerman, apparently taking it for granted as factual.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... which means he would have thrown a punch with his RIGHT hand, not his left.
wercal
(1,370 posts)A right handed fighter uses his left hand for the majority of the punches.
Left hand vs right hand means nothing.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Besides, Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. Tryavon had EVERY right to punch him. Like I said earlier, Zimmerman's gun could have cause his injuries. After fighting, he may have been weak when he pulled the trigger, and the gun hit him in the face.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Martin isn't fighting..but he is acting as the referee. Clearly he was familiar with how to box.
As to the notion that Zimmerman bloodied his own nose, you'd better tell the prosecution this theory, because they let it be stated as fact that Martin hit Zimmerman, in court on Monday, without objection.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)www.freerepublic.com
lumpy
(13,704 posts)It would be a help. When people take the law into their own hands this day and age, this is an example of what could happen.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)And I assume Martin wasn't a trained boxer either.
One would think it's human nature to throw a punch with your dominant hand, yes?
wercal
(1,370 posts)Human nature is to throw multiple jabs with your weak hand, so you can stand back and wind up your dominant hand for the big punch. Here is an example of people fighting:
You can see they use both hands. This video, by the way, came from Trayvon Martin's youtube channel. And, the kid in the striped shirt watching is believed to be Martin. So he had a little experience in it.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)What is known for sure:
1. This video was on Trayvon Martin's youtube channel, title 'anthony vs. curtis'
2. Somebody in the video shouts at 'Trayvon' and tells him to get out of the way of the camera
3. The tattoo on the arm of the person in the striped shirt are consistent with the tattoo on Trayvon Martin...near the 47 second mark....right bicep.
But if that wasn't good enough to convince you that Trayvon Martin was familiar with fighting, please know that the defense team has submitted into evidence a video, which was found on Martin's cell phone, showing two homeless men fight over a bicycle:
No conspiracy or black helicopters - submitted into evidence. Its authenticity has not been challenged by the prosecution, as law enforcement are the ones who extracted this video from the phone while processing it.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and anyway, I guess you are working hard at this
so I'll leave you to it.
wercal
(1,370 posts)It exists, right?
Its authentic, right?
So the contention that Trayvon Martin knew absolutely nothing about fighting is hard to swallow, in light of it.
That's what this thread has been about.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)(as opposed to as yet unproven claims)
Are you working for the defense?
You're not using your brain well, methinks, no offense.
wercal
(1,370 posts)"no, the thread has been about how sketchy Zimmerman's claims are, on account of the ACTUAL evidence."
Well please enlighten me - which evidence disproves Zimmerman's claim that he was punched?
Not theories...where is this ACTUAL evidence that disproves him?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)actual evidence is lack of Zimmerman dna on Trayvon's hands.
This throws all the rest into question, and does it well.
You can second guess the little scratch on his left hand
all you want, complicated theories about his secret genius at
boxing and general pugnaciousness, rain and grass washing
away all evidence that he had so much as touched Zimmerman
with either of his hands, and all that.. but common sense
dictates otherwise.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Common Sense?
Here is the common sense:
1. More than witness reported seeing a fight
2. One guy has a bloody nose
3. The other has a scratch on his knuckle
What do you think the common sense conclusion is?
Well, according to this thread:
1. Zimmerman bloodied his own nose on purpose
2. Zimmerman hit himself in the nose with the gun
3. Martin just couldn't have hit him with his left hand, since nobody fights with both their hands
4. Zimmerman fell backwards and hit his head on the walk
And I am the one, who has 'complicated theories'.
Anyway, you never answered my question and proved your statement...and you can't. Of the evidence that was collected at the scene, which piece proves that Martin never hit Zimmerman?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)
wercal
(1,370 posts)....once again, you do understand where the burden of proof lies, right?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and is otherwise innocent.
I get it.
wercal
(1,370 posts)What matters is what is known, and what can be proven. The burden of proof is on the prosecution; and, they are going to have a very difficult time proving that the event was different than Zimmerman's statement....at least as far as the start of the fight is concerned.
Now Zimmerman has some problems with his statement, primarily concerning his claim that Martin had his hands on his mouth...because it makes it difficult for him to claim that the screams are his.
And his claim that Martin went for the gun is not supported by any evidence...unlike the claim that he was punched, which is indeed supported by wound evidence.
As a result, he would get annihilated if he took the stand, and he probably won't.
See, I am looking at this from all angles. Now some people on this board (yes I'm looking at you) need to get a grip. You have to accept the easy stuff (its obvious Martin punched Zimmerman), if you want to look at the real inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.
I predict it will be a hung jury; and, we will have the messy business of deciding whether or not the state wants to re-file charges.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)and he is trying the case on the DU hoping to prove to us Liburals that teh gun is de godz, and the hoodie is de criminal.........
A complete waste of keystrokes.....
Hope you are well
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I am pondering.. perhaps the Zim defense team has
hired a bunch of people, and given them each one specific
thing to focus on.. why this person is so one-pointed
on the nose punch and the boxing video. Big bad Trayvon,
nose-puncher, fight-promoter, experienced boxer... not
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Please keep in mind the number of previous posts in the RBKA or RKBA or ReallyKrazyGunGungeon thread.
This could strike a blow to stand your ground laws, and gunnies want every opportunity to shoot it out with the baddies.........or so they think.
be well
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I'm not a reader of gun threads, generally.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Which have absolutely nothing to do with this case, except in the mashed potato minds of talking heads on the tee vee.
Zimmerman claims he could not have extricated himself, because he was pinned to the ground...making this a typical self defense case.
BTW, I don't care left right or sideways about SYG laws...just a point of correction that they have noooooothing to do with this case.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)it's so much fun watching you try to be like Mikey
wercal
(1,370 posts)But you still have no idea what SYG laws are, do you?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 08:02 PM - Edit history (2)
of BULLSHIT.
Sometime down the road, I'll sift through my ignore list, and I'll find I can remove you because you will be gone. In 12 years, I've seen you guys come and go, and in the end, you're always gone.
Have a nice trip, I'm sure people will stop trying to give you an audience sooner rather than later.
By the ways
you know what you can do with your SYG laws, don't you.
Buh bye lawyeriffic...
wercal
(1,370 posts)...its 'minutiae'?
Ok, well that really isn't minutia...but here's a little.
When you call me a Nethanderthal, spell it Neanderthal next time. That's just bad form.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...TM was right handed
wercal
(1,370 posts)And right handed people fight with their left hands. In fact, a right handed boxer will primarily use his left hand throughout the fight. So left hand/right hand means very little.
But I'm a conspiracy theorists for assuming that abraided hand, plus blood nose, plus witnesses stating there was a fight = Martin punched Zimmerman?
And the prosecution agrees with my whacko theory, since they did did not object to this being stated as fact in court on Monday?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Did they immediately 'bag' his hands to preserve dna? No.
Was it an ideal crime scene? No. It was raining.
Where was Martin found? In the grass, face down, laying on his hands...his hands wre in the wet grass.
I don't know why this simplest of details has sparked such controversy. It is not controversial. Martin punched Zimmerman. The defense stated this as fact on Monday...and the prosecution did NOT object.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and since there was no DNA and his hands: he did not punch zimmerman.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) wercal
(1,370 posts)I try to objectively discuss the case, and we can't get past the well known, accepted as true by the prosecution, fact, that Martin punched Zimmerman.
And I refuse to participate in the scattershot guesswork of other plausible ways Zimmerman got a bloody nose.
And I'm defending him?
Maybe I'm trying to discuss what actually happened, without letting emotion take over.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Myrina
(12,296 posts)
... methinks "wercal" doth protest too much.DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)nuk nuk nuk
I think I found a hoodie nuk nuk nuk....
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)they are racist jerks who believe they have the right to kill black people. simple.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I think he was righthanded, and the cut was on left hand.
Not likely he got it hitting Zimmmerman
wercal
(1,370 posts)And get in a 'fighting stance'.
Which fist is forward? It should be your weak hand.
Most people jab with their weak hand, and in a boxing match, the majority of punches thrown are with the weak hand.
Martin could have punched with either hand...especially if he had his drink in his right hand.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Lots of jabs with the left hand...and occassional uppercut or roundhouse with the right hand.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)It is from his now defunct youtube channel. He was clearly interested in it.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts
Mixed martial arts (MMA), is a full contact combat sport that allows the use of both striking and grappling techniques, both standing and on the ground, from a variety of other combat sports. The roots of modern mixed martial arts can be traced back to the ancient Olympics where one of the earliest documented systems of codified full range unarmed combat was in the sport of pankration.[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Various mixed style contests took place throughout Europe, Japan and the Pacific Rim during the early 1900s. The combat sport of vale tudo that had developed in Brazil from the 1920s was brought to the United States by the Gracie family in 1993 with the founding of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).[1]
The more dangerous vale-tudo-style bouts of the early UFCs were made safer with the implementation of additional rules, leading to the popular regulated form of MMA seen today. Originally promoted as a competition with the intention of finding the most effective martial arts for real unarmed combat situations, competitors were pitted against one another with minimal rules.[2] Later, fighters employed multiple martial arts into their style while promoters adopted additional rules aimed at increasing safety for competitors and to promote mainstream acceptance of the sport.[3] The name mixed martial arts was coined by television critic Howard Rosenberg, in 1993, in his review of UFC 1.[4] The term gained popularity when the website newfullcontact.com, then one of the biggest covering the sport, hosted and reprinted the article.[5] Following these changes, the sport has seen increased popularity with a pay-per-view business that rivals boxing and professional wrestling.[6]
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i am right-handed...my left hand is weak. if i was going to hit someone, i sure as hell would use my dominant hand. logical is not one of your strong qualities.
wercal
(1,370 posts)But I guess I'm wrong.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Martin hit Zimmerman ? Most people would strike out when being threatened by some stranger following them and then accosting them ( perhaps in a threatening manner).
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)do you have any evidence of that besides that ridiculous video you posted? i didn't think so. you zimmerman apologists are really funny. you ignore solid evidence, like DNA, and come up with idiotic theories based on videos (that may not even be of martin, like the first one to surface) instead. typical.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)His drink was found in his pocket. I have broken noses. I am right handed. I lead with my right and the majority of punches come from my dominant hand. And when I get into fighting stance, I have my right hand forward and use my left to block. I have only lost one fight. I also do judo. Stop playing.
wercal
(1,370 posts)You're doing it wrong.
But don't take my word for it...watch a boxing video.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not everyone is a professional fighter. I lead with my right because its stronger and more effective. I had to knock my ex out once for beating me up and believe me, I did it right.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)That presumably would have left spittle on his hand, which would have had at least epithelial cells in it. I've read you can get enough dna off the back of a postage stamp for PCR.
Of course, Zimmerman couldn't explain to the detectives exactly when he was being smothered while supposedly yelling nonstop for help.
So maybe Zimmerman mis-remembered being smothered.
wercal
(1,370 posts)His statement that Martin was covering his mouth doesn't match the defense contention that Zimmerman was screaming.
And Zimmerman's claims that Martin tried to grab the gun have been shaky.
For this reason, I highly doubt Zimmerman will take the stand, and it will hurt him.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Zimmerman is screwed whether or not he takes the stand.
Many of his own statements to the detectives are contradictory. The more he talks, the more he contradicts himself.
He wasn't counting on witnesses after dark, or 911 calls being recorded during the events. It doesn't matter if one witness or another is less than perfect, when many witnesses from different perspectives have stories that essentially corroborate the same whole. The same is true of the individual pieces of physical evidence.
I'm on dial-up so only rarely try to download tapes or videos. But last year I did listen to a snippet of one of the 911 calls. I couldn't understand the words of the cries for help, but I distinctly remember they sounded like they were silenced by the gunshot, versus silenced because no longer needed.
wercal
(1,370 posts)There were 8 or 9 911 calls.
In one of them, the caller describes a man with a red shirt (Zimmerman) on the ground, and somebody in a dark shirt (Martin) on top of him. This corroborates Zimmerman's statement.
So, the 911 tapes will be a mixed bag. Part of the reason I believe it will be a hung jury.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)There is also the possibility that one was on top at one point, and the other on top at another point.
The photos of injuries I saw last year did not support having his head slammed against concrete with any more force than might have happened with a fall, and certainly not repeatedly slammed. It seems likely based on what evidence I've read and heard that it was Martin yelling for help.
And the prosecution may be able to demonstrate through witnesses that Zimmerman actively ambushed Martin, not the other way around, and that Martin was the one fighting for his life against an armed aggressor. Too bad they can't use NSA files to get the cellphone content with his friend.
Or, of course, he could have just stayed in his car like the 911 operator suggested.
wercal
(1,370 posts)But it supposedly only logs record of a call...not the actual conversation.
Here is a photo of the head wounds:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Zimmerman's%20head%20wounds.jpg
People have different opinions about the severity of the wounds. There are clearly at least two, indicative of hitting the pavement more than once.
And here is his face:
And again there is great argument over the severity of the injury.
Getting out of the car did start the motion of events that led to the shooting. The question is, under the law, was that act grossly negligent? In other words, would a reasonable person have known it could lead to death? The prosecution was dealt a big blow Monday, when the dispatcher was cross examined. When asked why he didn't do more than 'suggest' Zimmerman not follow, he stated liability rules prevented him from doing that. So he testifies that he knows Zimmerman is following...but a fear of liability prevents him from definitively telling Zimmerman to stop. So he obviously didn't think it would lead to a deadly encounter....bolstering the defense case.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)when it fell off my barn roof, from about 7 1/2 feet. From a piece of ice falling less than 3 feet to my head, I had far, far more bleeding than he does. There's a reason they put out styptic for shaving cuts....
The 2 injuries to the back of his head could just as easily be from a single backwards fall, depending on how he landed, so while they support that he slammed his head into concrete at least once, they don't prove how that happened. None of the witnesses reported seeing his head slammed into concrete, so there is only his word that is how those injuries occurred.
It is entirely possible that Martin landed a punch on his nose, and with witnesses to the two fighting, that seems most likely. However, as I wrote above, it also is not impossible that shooting upward toward Martin's chest caused recoil toward his face. Either way, plenty of fist fights have left people with broken noses and alive without resorting to a gun and killing.
Last year I read that he needed an affirmative defense, but I can't remember now if that was for a potential stand your ground hearing, or for the trial, or for both. And of course we don't know what the jury instructions are or will be. But if I understand correctly, his lawyer has to prove with a preponderance of evidence that he believed his life was in imminent danger and that he had no reasonable escape. But only he can describe his state of mind, yet he can't take the stand because he will be taken apart by the prosecution.
So the defense will have to discredit pretty much every witness to the events, and somehow turn their testimony into Zimmerman ambushed and at disadvantage in the fight, without being able to actually have a witness explain how he felt his life was in imminent danger. Beyond that, they have only his contradictory, discredited and un-provable claims of what happened.
I think the 911 tapes of someone yelling for help, cutoff by a gunshot mid-cry, and Zimmerman's own claim that he was being smothered, will make it pretty clear who was at disadvantage. Doesn't matter if you're on top, when the one on the bottom is aiming a gun at you. I don't believe Zimmerman's claim that Martin said, "You got me." The bullet shredded his lungs and likely the force of the impact would have winded him so that he couldn't speak or inhale.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the DNA evidence is huge, and i think you know it. it proves exactly the opposite of what you are claiming is "obvious."
wercal
(1,370 posts)But the witness this morning, who was right there, sure thought it was pretty obvious MArtin hit Zimmerman.
But hey, you probably know more than him.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Your Op doesn't do it justice IMO..Thx for posting it..
niyad
(132,440 posts)have been pummeling that lying sob zimmy.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)niyad
(132,440 posts)him over and then shoot him.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Z's claim in that TM was on top and Z shot him while he was on top. After the shot TM would have about 10 to 15 seconds in which he could jump up, take a couple of steps, then fall over.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)will explain exactly where Trayvon was, how far away he was and the degree of angle his body was in relation to the weapon at the time of discharge. That is what an autopsy is for.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...to the FBI
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)of that a yr ago.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)shame
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)the shining light of truth shines bright on those who would enshroud us in darkness
DB 2013
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)The just come to ours because theirs smells like shit.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)You can cut through the BS better than 99.99 % of the population!
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)The Neanderthal syndrome, they don't understand us, so they send in the guys with big clubs to change our minds.
But we have unlimited supplies of granite cookies......
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts) bring it on, trolls DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Never changes, follows to a T
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)not have your blood on them?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)that's the only logical conclusion, unless martin was wearing gloves
The trolls don't like that fact AT ALL! They've been pretending Martin hit Zimmerman.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)all of his lies are being exposed and debunked...and this is just day 2. no way this asshole goes free.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)authentic witness, who is very clear that Travon said he was being followed by Zimmerman at least a couple times during their conversation and that he was trying to hide from Zimmerman, a strange man about whom he was apprehensive.
She doesn't seem to be familiar though with court proceedings and their structure and how invested the courts are in getting exact and complete details. And the defense attorney is not providing questions to her with exacting enough context to elicit a knowing response.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Somehow, it will be thought of as a tragic accident and Zim will get manslaughter at best. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I haven't been following this closely.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)we will find out.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Which means it was not self defense in any way shape or form.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and nothing he claims is reliable.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)no matter who was the aggressor.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It always shows on his face. I don't think the jury will be impressed with it.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)let him go! 
ErikwithaK
(2 posts)The State of Florida disagrees with you.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-19/news/os-george-zimmerman-evidence-new-20120919_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-cell-phone-records
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)State scientists checked several parts of the 9 mm handgun: its grip, trigger, slide and holster. They found Zimmerman's DNA and that belonging to other unidentifiable people but none that matched Trayvon, records show.
(clip)
Special Prosecutor Angela Corey released some DNA evidence May 17 but more details today. Records from the FDLE's Orlando lab show scientists there found a Trayvon-Zimmerman DNA mixture in a blood stain on Zimmerman's red-orange jacket.
Zimmerman's DNA was found in a stain on Trayvon's shirt. Scientists found on that same piece of clothing a Zimmerman-Trayvon mix of DNA, they reported.