George Zmmerman trial begins...

[billc]

It is not sufficiently emphasized in our country that bruising can also appear post-mortem. We report two cases in which we observed discolorations which looked like ante-mortem bruising

This type of bruising is different than what would have occurred in Martin's hands.

Case 1: A 37-year-old man was found prone on a river shore and taken out of the water by a rescuer by grasping at the right upper arm approximately one hour and 30 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations resembling ante-mortem bruising were observed on the lateral and frontal surfaces of the right upper arm. Case 2: A 40-year-old woman was found prone immersed in a moat and taken out of the water in the above-mentioned manner approximately one hour and 45 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations appearing to be ante-mortem bruising were observed on the inner surface of the right upper arm. The cause of death in both instances was drowning. Bibliographic investigation revealed that bruising of significant size can appear after death

If someone had pressed on Martin's hands with the same pressure needed to lift those bodies, it may have left a bruise, but I think the point the Forensic expert was making is that no blood movement...no swelling in the hands after death due to hitting someone, the way it would happen for a living person.

Additionally, we believe that post-mortem bruising should be sufficiently considered, because it can be important whether a person was grasped when he or she was alive or dead.

You would have to watch the actual testimony to see exactly what he said about the hands...

 

[elder999]

This type of bruising is different than what would have occurred in Martin's hands.

Well, of course it is, bill-it still negates his argument. There likely was no bruising apparent to Martin's hands because of his "6 months of MMA training," as much as anything. Who really cares? At the end of the day, a virtually unarmed kid who was minding his own business was shot for no good reason-he was followed for no good reason-by someone who has no business carrying a firearm, imnsho as someone who has had to carry professionally, and has carried regularly as a civilian for years

. Some-like yourself-have had to paint that kid as some sort of "thug" from the outset.(And you did, bill-in the very first Zimmerman/Martin thread here "on the Study" your very first post on the subject was wondering about a dead kid's criminal record-don't make me find it and quote it...:lfao: )

Fact is, though, there was never enough evidence for 2nd degree murder-it was manslaughter at best- in part because of a poorly written Florida law that will also wind up on trial someday, in part because of the prosecution's reluctance, and in part because there's only one side of the story that can be told, and that's Zimmerman's.

 

[Big Don]

And as for "being on top," if someone pulled a gun on me and I responded with empty hands, I might just "be on top" right up until I was shot, too....

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence...

It doesn't matter, though-the prosecution never wanted this case, and their handling of it demonstrates as much.....

So, you agree this is a media/politically co-opted kangaroo courtish show trial?

 

[Big Don]

View attachment 18156

Is a much more dominant and dangerous position that this.

View attachment 18157

If you aren't a fighter, and don't know the difference, and someone is beating the crap out of you, either one would be pretty GD scary...

 

[elder999]

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence...
So, you agree this is a media/politically co-opted kangaroo courtish show trial?

Well, no-we know T.Martin was armed with a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles, and Zimmerman had a gun. One doesn't need to assume anything else-none of Martin's DNA was found on the gun.

And yes, the trial is just the media fueled prelude to Zimmerman's eventual evisceration in civil court.

Oh, and btw, I'll do it anyway :lfao:

Does the victim have a police record? I ask because all too often, the "my son never did anything wrong," turns out to be a long criminal record. I would like to know all the facts, and not just the spike lee facts, before we determine what may have actually happened. An attacker doesn't have to be armed to kill you. Do we know the victim was unarmed yet? Or is that just what people are saying?

At least back then you still knew who "the victim" was. .

 

[Tames D]

Well, of course it is, bill-it still negates his argument. There likely was no bruising apparent to Martin's hands because of his "6 months of MMA training," as much as anything. Who really cares? At the end of the day, a virtually unarmed kid who was minding his own business was shot for no good reason-he was followed for no good reason-by someone who has no business carrying a firearm, imnsho as someone who has had to carry professionally, and has carried regularly as a civilian for years

. Some-like yourself-have had to paint that kid as some sort of "thug" from the outset.(And you did, bill-in the very first Zimmerman/Martin thread here "on the Study" your very first post on the subject was wondering about a dead kid's criminal record-don't make me find it and quote it...:lfao: )

Fact is, though, there was never enough evidence for 2nd degree murder-it was manslaughter at best- in part because of a poorly written Florida law that will also wind up on trial someday, in part because of the prosecution's reluctance, and in part because there's only one side of the story that can be told, and that's Zimmerman's.

Really? Seriously? I'll take your word for it because I wasn't there. And you were apparently.

 

[elder999]

Really? Seriously? I'll take your word for it because I wasn't there. And you were apparently.

These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.

I would have.

So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and shot, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.


I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, because this was a wrongful death.

 

[Tames D]

These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.

I would have.

So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and shot, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.

I think the question is, why was he shot? Perhaps because he wasn't an innocent tween that they want us to believe he was. He was full grown, probably bigger than Zimmerman. Perhaps because he was beating the living hell out of Zimmerman? Look behind the facade, he wasn't momma's little angel you think he was. Do the research. Seriously.

 

[elder999]

I think the question was, why was he shot? Perhaps because he wasn't an innocent tween that they want us to belive he was. Perhaps because he was beating the living hell out of Zimmerman? Look behind the facade, he wasn't momma's little angel you think he was. Do the research. Seriously.

I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.

It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.

You're being followed by an older man with a gun, in the dark of night.

Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."

 

[Tames D]

I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.

It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.

You're being followed by an older man with a gun, in the dark of night.

Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."

Actually, it's very relevant. And he didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until he was beating the living hell out of him. He found out the hard way.

 

[billc]

A nice recap of the trial so far...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/zimmermans_pointless_trial.html

Eight simple facts make it very easy to understand the now-famous murder trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin unfolding in Sanford, Florida. Finding the truth doesn't require all the subjective testimony and opinion dominating the trial:

(1) It had been raining, so the grass was wet. The shooting occurred at the edge of the sidewalk on the grass.

(2) The back of George Zimmerman's clothes were wet and "flecked" with grass, a police officer who investigated at the scene testified, as if he had been lying on his back in wet grass.

(3) The knees in Trayvon Martin's jeans were stained, Medical Examiner Shiping Bao testified, as if Martin had been kneeling in the wet grass.

​

 

[billc]

Last minute problems with the Judge...on top of all the other problems with the judge during the trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-judge-needs-to-read-this-case-on-authentication-of-text-messages/

In my post last night I noted a near shouting match between defense attorney Don West and Judge Debra Nelson over whether text messages on Trayvon Martin’s phone regarding fighting were “authenticated.”


Judge Nelson stated that there was no evidence that Trayvon typed the texts even though the messages were on his phone and stored in double-password protected format using phone apps. Judge Nelson read from the bench from what appeared to be a treatise on evidence.



The defense countered that its computer forensic expert, who testified, was able to track hundreds if not thousand of text messages on the phone and that the flow of conversations indicated it was Trayvon in context. The defense also vigorously complained that because the State held back evidence and the defense’s request to postpone the trial was denied, the defense did not have the time to track down and call as witnesses the people with whom Trayvon was texting to personally authenticate the conversations.


Although we will not get her ruling until after court starts this morning, it appears that Judge Nelson is on the verge of reversible error if she excludes the text messages on authentication grounds (there may be other grounds to exclude them, I’m just dealing with authentication).



A reader forwarded to me the case of State v. Lumarque, 44 So.3d 171, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2010, in which a Florida appeals court reversed a trial court’s decision to exclude text messages on authentication grounds. Here’s the pertinent part of the holding (emphasis mine):

 

[granfire]

These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.

I would have.

So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and shot, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.


I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, because this was a wrongful death.

I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.

It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.

You're being followed by an older man with a gun, in the dark of night.

Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."

Me thinks you are jumping to conclusions.
Much in the same way others do the other way around.

Truth usually being somewhere in the middle.

But you certainly are blowing the argument for CCW as form of self defense right out of the water, single handedly! :lol:

There is much to say about this, developing the scenario from either side...again, somewhere in the middle they meet.


And speaking as a woman....when you are being followed, walking down a dark path is generally not considered smart...you stay where the light is.

two people made poor choices. One got to go home.

If the victim would have been of different ethnic background, would we have even heard of the incident?
I know there was enough inflammatory rhetoric going around right after, from the usual sources....the parents embarking on an odd tour through the country to speak on this matter...only to fall silent as the halo became duller with every stone unturned....

 

[James Kovacich]

I think the fact he was so close to being home, he was young and being followed by an armed adult speaks loudly. I think it doesn't matter who was on the bottom. Zimmerman is going to be seen as the aggressor/shooter.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Actually, it's very relevant. And he didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until he was beating the living hell out of him. He found out the hard way.

Whoa. Beating the hell out of him? I don't think any of the hyperbole being used throughout this thread is helping the discussion at all.

If we're predicting the outcome of the trial, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, and it was a poor choice on the part of the prosecution to pursue that charge. My opinion is that he is guilty of manslaughter and that would have been an appropriate charge. I don't believe Zimmerman intended to kill anyone. I believe it was a combination of adrenaline, incompetence and fear of a minority group that caused him to over-react and exacerbate the situation, and that it was his situation to control. He could have de-escalated the situation, and instead chose to escalate. But it wasn't murder.

 

[MJS]

I've followed it enough to know that I don't have much regard for either the prosecution or the defense. I've heard the recordings of the 911 operator telling him not to go after Martin. He opted not to follow this instruction. Stupidity.

Martin's picture from when he was twelve was all over the media. Very dishonest. Zimmerman was portrayed as white, but he isn't. Dishonest.

I don't know what actually happened, but I do know that I have little trust in the people trying to paint Zimmerman as some kind of hero or Martin as a tween kid of about twelve. By all accounts, an armed man pursued another man, accosted him (either verbally or physically; who knows?) which promted a scuffle that ended when the armed man shot the other man, who so far as I know, was unarmed.

I will cry no tears for Zimmerman if he is found guilty. Nor will I raise cheers for Martin's family. Should he be acquitted, I will not be gnashing my teeth in frustration nor will I be mourning the miscarriage of justice with Martin's family. Both sides seem happy to slant the truth or obscure it all together. So I'm happy to let them fight it out in their own little sand box.

My take today, is the same as it was when this first happened, that being, we will most likely, never get the real story, due to 1 person being dead. Furthermore, I still maintain that Zimmerman, unless his position as a neighborhood watch person, entails chasing, detaining, restraining, etc, a suspicious person, then he should not be pretending that he's a cop. There're men and women out there who do that job daily...let them do it!

Seems like both sides are trying to determine whether or not Zimmerman used the stand your ground law to his favor. I mean, IMO, if GZ intentionally provoked TM into a confrontation, well.....if that was the case, then I'd say GZ is certainly in the wrong.

And if GZ is found not guilty, we can only hope (yeah, I know I'm asking for A LOT here) that the citizens don't riot to prove a point, but like I said, I might be asking for a lot here.

 

[James Kovacich]

Something that is completely overlooked is that Travon being on top really means nothing. There's no way to prove who attacked who. Anyone who knows anything about real fights knows that it could of been just as likely as any other scenario that Zimmerman tackeled Travon and they rolled around with Travon landing on top and Georges injuries could be a result of rolling around.

That's my point. For every point the defense makes, there's other scenarios that "could of " happened. In my opinion, the defense has an uphill battle.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

If you aren't a fighter, and don't know the difference, and someone is beating the crap out of you, either one would be pretty GD scary...

After a week of BJJ/Submission Grappling training, it would make a difference. Zimmerman had some "MMA" training. If it was actual MMA training, I am 100% confident he understood the difference and could better protect himself from guard than from under mount. How much better is up in the air, but having trained in BJJ for going on 8 years now, I've seen a LOT of people come through the door. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who trains regularly to fail to achieve blue belt level skill within about 2 years. It's just impossible. Even the most physically challenged, uncoordinated person will develop rudimentary proficiency just through exposure and repitition.

And the point remains that to an untrained, lay person observing the fight in the dark, these two very different positions would be indistinguishable, even though we (who train in martial arts) understand that there is a profound difference between mount and guard.

 

[granfire]

These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.

I would have.

So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and shot, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.


I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, because this was a wrongful death.

I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.

It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.

You're being followed by an older man with a gun, in the dark of night.

Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."

Something that is completely overlooked is that Travon being on top really means nothing. There's no way to prove who attacked who. Anyone who knows anything about real fights knows that it could of been just as likely as any other scenario that Zimmerman tackeled Travon and they rolled around with Travon landing on top and Georges injuries could be a result of rolling around.

That's my point. For every point the defense makes, there's other scenarios that "could of " happened. In my opinion, the defense has an uphill battle.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

well, under normal circumstance, it's innocent until proven guilty.
There are a million ways either could have been the aggressor. I don't see how yet another scenario will make it harder on the defense...

 

[James Kovacich]

well, under normal circumstance, it's innocent until proven guilty.
There are a million ways either could have been the aggressor. I don't see how yet another scenario will make it harder on the defense...

I wasn't poviding another scenario in the respect I'm thinking you see. I was just showing neither side can prove what happened and it's harder for the defense because Zimmerman followed Martin and that alone shows his action as "initiating" whatever followed.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2