Zimmerman Trial Outcome Poll

[Loosedhorse]

LH, if somebody threatened you with a gun while you were unarmed, would you...

Am I allowed to rephrase your question to:

"If you were 17, and being followed by a creepy guy for no reason, and..."?

The wisdom of M's actions is not at issue. It is the presence or absence of reasonable fear. I do not expect 17 year olds to be wise. On some days, I wonder that I got past 17 myself. Guardian angels.

BTW: You are probably aware that the gun jammed after the first shot. So, we are incorrect to give Z credit for intentionally ceasing fire. And the gun jamming may have been caused by M gripping it.

It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism.

Source: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...-we-dont-know/

We have no evidence that M was not both grasping the gun AND hitting Z (and none that he was).

There is nothing deceptive about a clear and complete statement.

Agreed. But you quoted a very incomplete statemtent of the actual instruction.

Of course, I give you full credit for providing the link. Perhaps my accusation was just a demonstration of how unkind presumptions can be?

I do apologize for using your heavily edited "quote" to make a point. Mea culpa, and I withdraw entirely and unreservedly the charge of intentional deception.

And to Selena: Yes'm.

[KodiakBeer]

We have no evidence that M was not both grasping the gun AND hitting Z (and none that he was).

The evidence is there in the fact that his hand or sleeve was not burned or abraded by grasping the gun as it was fired. The only powder burns are on his chest which indicate the gun was fired at near contact distance, once again corroborating Zimmerman's story.

Essentially, you are concocting a house of cards to explain why every bit of evidence supporting Zimmerman should be ignored in favor of the "racist attack on a young black man" fantasy being pushed by people like Al Sharpton.

I'm not buying it. Martin was a burglar (fact), suspected of being a burglar by a local resident. This kid was also a hater and if you doubt that google "trayvon tweets" for a picture of what he was really like.

[Loosedhorse]

The only powder burns are on his chest which indicate the gun was fired at near contact distance, once again corroborating Zimmerman's story.

Please, please tell me where the coroner said, "I checked for GSR on M's hands and found none."

If he said that, then there was no GSR on M's hands, period, AFAIC. If he didn't say that, then he didn't check, and there may have been.

I know enough about forensic documentation to know that.

I'm not buying it. Martin was a burglar (fact)

Not fact. He was never convicted of a thing. He died innocent, and so will always (legally) be innocent.

But, of course, you can buy whatever you want.

[xl_target]

Like I said before, this thread is fast becoming a waste of time.

Kinda funny. You says something false, get called on it, and then say the thread is a waste. Well, with all the false statements, no wonder.

Ok, please point out where I said something false. Or where I have made one false statement? Wishing won't make it come true.

[Loosedhorse]

Speculation, immaterial, not admissible.

False. It is admissible and comes in under argument. And state of mind is not only material, it is essential.

Sorry to repeat myself, but you insisted:

Your statement is false. Twice.

[xl_target]

Not at all, KB. Goes to state of mind. If he had forgotten all about M, and was chatting up some pretty girl, and then "ran into" M, we can expect one set of actions. If he had been instead doggedly slogging through the rain, maybe getting more and more annoyed, and THEN spots M? Well, now M's got a lot to answer for.

How is something like the above admissible? You start bringing up "chatting up some pretty girl" and even the jury will laugh you out of court. It is still speculation and immaterial.

My statement was made with reference to the above.

As for the statement that I made (that you changed before I could reply)

I'm not buying it

I really don't have to say anything about that do I?

[xl_target]

If you want to talk about misleading statements, what about your:

BTW: You are probably aware that the gun jammed after the first shot. So, we are incorrect to give Z credit for intentionally ceasing fire. And the gun jamming may have been caused by M gripping it.

It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism.
Source: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...-we-dont-know/

Just because only one shot was fired, it is by no means certain that the gun jammed. It might have and it might have not. Yet you say "You are probably aware that the gun jammed after the first shot".

So you were there and examined the gun and you are positive that it was jammed? If you are just speculating again, why don't you say so instead of stating it as a certainty? Even the author of the blog that you quoted, after mentioning that the gun might have jammed, clearly says at the end of his hypothesis: "But – WE DON’T KNOW YET."

[Loosedhorse]

it is by no means certain that the gun jammed.

Take it up with Ayoob, friend. And when did I say that ANYTHING was certain.

False, again, xl. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

How is something like the above admissible?

Well it's nice to see you admitting you need to go "educate" yourself. Report back.

As for the statement that I made (that you changed before I could reply)

Uhh...how did I change your statement, again? Are you going to accuse me now of...OMG...correcting an error?!!!



Personally, I think that a willingness to correct cut&paste errors--or any error--is a good thing. I'm sure you think differently, and I am not surprised.

[xl_target]

Take it up with Ayoob, friend. And when did I say that ANYTHING was certain.

False, again, xl. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.Well it's nice to see you admitting you need to go "educate" yourself. Report back.

OK, then I'll quote from Ayoob:

The death weapon was a Kel-Tec PF9 semiautomatic 9mm pistol. It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism. This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martin’s hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired. This would clearly change the shape of the case. But – WE DON’T KNOW YET.

Yet you clearly say: "You are probably aware that the gun jammed after the first shot".

Putting words in Ayoob's mouth?


I have no way of knowing that you made an error (OMG! you admit it?). I looked at your post and started to answer it and I find that it has changed.

Sorry, but this is getting nowhere. It's not worth arguing with you about this he said-she said stuff. It doesn't advance the post at all.

[Loosedhorse]

Putting words in Ayoob's mouth?

I don't think so. Please: YOU explain how, other than a jam, a semi-auto ends up with only the chambered round fired and a full magazine.

Please. I'm waiting. We all are.

As to whether M caused that: I said "may have". Which I think is consistent with Ayoob.

Well, I at least appreciate you're clarifying, with your baseless and continued attacks on me, how little you value accuracy, and how desperate you are to mislead.

Sorry, but this is getting nowhere.

Exactly: once again, you make false statements (this time, accusations against me), are refuted...

And so decide to withdraw. Good decision, IMHO.

[xl_target]

Sorry but you did not say "may have". You said (and I quote): "BTW: You are probably aware that the gun jammed after the first shot."

Also Ayoob never said anything about an empty casing in the chamber. He says (and I quote again): " It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired".

To clarify, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your statements. So I'll stop here before this degenerates into who has the bigger sexual organ

[Loosedhorse]

Sorry but you did not say "may have".

No, actually, I did.

And the gun jamming may have been caused by M gripping it.

Again, I think that is consistent with what Ayoob said.

Also Ayoob never said anything about an empty casing in the chamber.

Oh: and if you look, I don't say that either.

Like I said, I am careful to correct what I should, but I don't correct what I shouldn't.

I think that Ayoob said he feels a jam happened. I said there is no coroner's comment that there is, after checking, no GSR on M's hands.

You can contact Captain Ayoob and see if I'm wrong; I'll accept that, of course. Or contact the coroner about the GSR--that's fine, too.

[xl_target]

Ah never mind...... You win "the Internets"! I guess that is what is most important.

[Mr. James]

Sheesh, no kidding, xl.

As for Mr. Zimmerman's testimony, I doubt he'll ever get within a grenade's throw of a witness stand. Why? His defense team can perforate the existing record evidence without him. That nasty "presumed innocent" thing again. IANAL, but I doubt he'll say a word at trial. I also suspect if Mr. Zimmerman actually raises his right hand, his defense team has concluded things are going very badly, perhaps based on their read of the jury.

And finally, without commenting on this particular case, if I ever need a criminal defense attorney, I hope I have someone as dogged as Loosedhorse! Press on, good man!

[Carl N. Brown]

I was aware that the initial reports were 7 live rounds, full magazine, one empty, implying that the magazine was fully loaded with an empty in the chamber.

OK.

In the recent discovery document dump (183pp)
Report of Investigation, Case Number: 201250001136, Investigator Serino, Christopher F., includes the following:

Recovered at the scene were;
Kel-Tec PF-9
6 live rounds in the magazine
1 loose live round when cleared that had been in the chamber
1 spent casing

The spent casing (9mm S&B) was found on the ground after a sweep with a metal detector.

ADDED: bears repeating the recovered evidence (TS-1) now consists of 6 live rounds and 2 empty casings:

Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDLE cut material from the back of Martin's two sweatshirts and used Zimmerman's gun (Exhibit TS-1 logged by officer T.Smith) and one of the unfired cartridges to do a test shot, apparently producing damage consistent with the gunshot to the front of the sweatshirts. The front hole in each of the two shirts is described as "consistent with a contact shot".

That leaves the TS-1 evidence NOW as the Kel-Tec pistol, magazine, one fired casing from the crime scene, one fired casing from the FDLE test, and six unfired cartridges from the 7 shot magazine.

[Loosedhorse]

That nasty "presumed innocent" thing again. IANAL, but I doubt he'll say a word at trial.

Again, presumed innocent does not have to govern my assessment of what may have happened; but "beyond reasonable doubt" does and should govern the results of any criminal proceeding.

I think anyone (Harold Fish, Harold Fish) who remains silent while claiming SD is taking a risk. But I can't predict what Z'll do. I do think the case might be dismissed on SYG grounds before trial.

if I ever need a criminal defense attorney, I hope I have someone as dogged as Loosedhorse! Press on, good man!

Very kind of you: thanks. And yes: if this were a different forum, and everyone was telling me how Z was "obviously" guilty, I'd be arguing against that, too.

[Carl N. Brown]

It is possible that O'Mara could use the prosecution phase of the trial, if the prosecution case is weak enough, to demolish their case on cross-exam of the prosecution's own witnesses and create enough reasonable doubt that a defense phase would be unnecessary. (Think Gerry Spence's defense in the Ruby Ridge trial.)

The rest of the world is treating Crump's presentment of Z as unquestionably guilty, so that influences me.

[KodiakBeer]

Recovered at the scene were;
Kel-Tec PF-9
6 live rounds in the magazine
1 loose live round when cleared that had been in the chamber
1 spent casing

No reason to quote that other than that it bears repeating.

[bruno2]

Sheesh, no kidding, xl.

As for Mr. Zimmerman's testimony, I doubt he'll ever get within a grenade's throw of a witness stand. Why? His defense team can perforate the existing record evidence without him. That nasty "presumed innocent" thing again. IANAL, but I doubt he'll say a word at trial. I also suspect if Mr. Zimmerman actually raises his right hand, his defense team has concluded things are going very badly, perhaps based on their read of the jury.

And finally, without commenting on this particular case, if I ever need a criminal defense attorney, I hope I have someone as dogged as Loosedhorse! Press on, good man!

I believe in Fl since Z is claimimng SD as reason for shooting M that he will have to take the stand and substantiate his SD claim. Where if Z was only defending a criminal charge of murder 2 with no SD claim he wouldnt have to take the stand. The burden of proof would lay soley on the state to prove his guilt. Now he has to prove his need for SD to the court.

[cambeul41]

if I ever need a criminal defense attorney, I hope I have someone as dogged as Loosedhorse! Press on, good man!

Very kind of you: thanks. And yes: if this were a different forum, and everyone was telling me how Z was "obviously" guilty, I'd be arguing against that, too.

LH --

That is the way I have been interpreting your efforts.

[erictank]

Again, presumed innocent does not have to govern my assessment of what may have happened; but "beyond reasonable doubt" does and should govern the results of any criminal proceeding.

I think anyone (Harold Fish, Harold Fish) who remains silent while claiming SD is taking a risk. But I can't predict what Z'll do. I do think the case might be dismissed on SYG grounds before trial.Very kind of you: thanks. And yes: if this were a different forum, and everyone was telling me how Z was "obviously" guilty, I'd be arguing against that, too.

Personally, from what we've seen so far I don't believe SYG even applies, despite that it's being made out to be the focal point of this case. If Zimmerman's story is accurate, he was unable to retreat, and so standard self-defense applies rather than SYG. If instead he was the aggressor, then neither SYG nor standard self-defense apply (to Zimmerman, that is - if Zimmerman was the aggressor in the fight, then MARTIN might have been covered by a SYG defense, had he lived. Barring information we don't have yet, though, I do not believe that Martin was justified in attempting to beat Zimmerman). But then, as always, IANAL and we quite possibly lack relevant details.

And on your last note, I do feel obliged to point out that the initial reports of this incident in the media were quite damning to George Zimmerman (deliberately-slanted so, by most accounts). Plenty of people in early-to-mid-March were calling for Zimmerman to be locked up, or worse, for what was openly being called the murder of Trayvon Martin. As more details came out, including the revelation of media's deliberate editing of calls/transcripts to make Zimmerman seem racist when he had not in fact spoken in such a manner, it seemed more like a lot of people realized that, "Hey, we really DON'T have all the information, and as more (and more-accurate) info comes out, it sounds a lot less like a slam-dunk case that Zimmerman's a racist child-murdering bastard after all. Maybe we ought to wait for the trial..." Doesn't mean that the pendulum ought to swing ALL the way over to the other side, with people reflexively and mindlessly defending Zimmerman regardless of the facts, but more people being willing to treat him as innocent-until-PROVEN-guilty is, IMO, a good thing.

As is your persistence here in helping to keep the pendulum from bouncing off that second stop, for that matter.

[Selena]

And yes: if this were a different forum, and everyone was telling me how Z was "obviously" guilty, I'd be arguing against that, too.

Just remember, playing devil's advocate means taking the devil's commission.

[gc70]

I'm not particularly technically inclined, so input from someone who is knowledgeable would be appreciated.

There are two totally unbiased but silent witnesses in this case - the cell phones of Martin and Zimmerman. Correct me if I am wrong, but would cell phone signals not have been processed through the same tower or set of towers, providing a common baseline of information regarding some aspects of the timing of events? Also, is it not possible that the cell phones, though internal GPS or external tower triangulation, could provide some information about the movements of Martin and Zimmerman?

[Carl N. Brown]

^ It is my understanding that Tracey Martin (father) deferred to his lawyer the decision on releasing to the police the access code to Trayvon Martin's cell phone. The initial hangup was Martin's parents did not have the code.


Since the rest of the world seemed to be piling on a "Justice for Trayvon! Convict the White Racist Now!" kick, I felt, and feel, there ought to be a "Fair Play for Zimmerman" committee.

An early article at The Daily Beast on Zimmerman's 911 calls ("Was George Zimmerman just a vigilant neighbor, or something more perilous? ... Taken together, the police log of Zimmerman’s calls paint a picture of an extremely vigilant neighbor.")

But starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males. On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...abuse-911.html
Matthew DeLuca, "Did Trayvon Shooter Abuse 911?", The Daily Beast, 22 Mar 2012.

The author ascribed to Zimmerman the motive of "suspicion" to call about the kid and could not fathom why Zimmerman could be suspicious of a small black kid. Well it is obvious: he was white racist obsessed with young black males, if the call on the 7-9 year-old was motivated by suspicion.

Actually there was an indicator in the police report of why Zimmerman was concerned about the boy. Several commentators on various boards have noted that if you look up that 911 call log, the 911 operator logged:

4/22/2011 19:11:31 1017 OREGON REF BM S43 APPRX 7-9YOA APPRX 04FT/SKINNY BUILD SHORT BLK HAIR LSW BLU TSHIRT/BLU SHORTS/
4/22/2011 19:11:58 COMPL ADVD S43 IS WALKING ALONE & IS NOT SUPERVISED ON BUSY STREET // COMPL CONCERNED FOR WELL BEING

(http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/upl...allHistory.pdf page 37)

(Oregon Avenue is the street outside the gate at Retreat at Twin Lakes.)

So COMPL (complaintant Zimmerman) was concerned for the well being of a black kid (7-9 years old, 4 foot tall) walking un-supervised on a busy street, apparently near a busy intersection (Twin Trees entrance to Oregon with entrance to a business on opposite side)). That is perilous, extreme, obsessive behavior?

The recent document dump produced a copy of a newsletter by the Retreat at Twin lakes homeowners association "Retreat Reflections" for Feb 2012 had this warning:

Attention Parents--
Please tell your children not to play in the street or behind others' homes. We've had several complaints about children being narrowly missed by cars coming around corners and about balls hitting others' windows, porches and vehicles. Please speak with your children about using the sidewalks and grassy areas for play or going to the park across the street. Their safety is important to us.

Seems like the whole RTL HOA had a obsession with extreme vigilance concerning suspicious children playing on or near the streets.

And as far as Zimmerman actually reporting suspicious young black males in the neighboorhood, since the recent burglaries and vandalisms had been perpetrated mostly by young black males, who should he have reported on? Old white women? Jesus Whiz cheese topping for communion wafers. No frelling wonder why the guy who asked his neighbor to call the police in the Kitty Genovese murder told the reporter he did not call himself because "I did not want to get involved."

[bruno2]

Nice job of comparing and contrasting the info Carl! People will try to spin things every which way. Anybody that tells part of the story to convince the public to villianize a person should never be taken seriously again. They certainly should never be called upon in a courtroom to answer any questions unless they are the defendants.