Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman [W:1041]

[MaggieD]

You may think you are objective but you are far from it. What you are doing is taking the killer's side of story steadfast to just let him walk while ignoring all the doubts and inconsistencies of his story together with his behavior on that night leading up to the killing per the 911 call and the victim's girl friend's phone conversation.

An objective person looking at all these now before us will say there is definitely a probable cause for a trial and let the jury decide the case based on all the evidence and testimonies presented in the court.

There may be probable cause. I don't know. And neither do you. The proof's in the grand jury returning a true bill. That is my objectivity. Innocent until proven guilty.

Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman threw the first punch? (No one that we know of.)
Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman's accounting of events is untrue? (No one that we know of.)

If there's evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot from a distance? Different ballgame.
If the DOJ decides this is some kind of hate crime? Different ballgame.
If witnesses come forward that contradict his story? Different ballgame.

Unless and until that happens, my objectivity tells me that this guy's being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion. Pick your verb.

 

[Michael Johnson]

How did you make that determination? Conclusively how?


All you are doing is wild conjectures here.


That plus more that led up to a teenager being killed by him. The element of negligent homicide is there given the circumstances that we only hear the killer's account with is called into question. That's why this case needs to be heard in the court of law.

It won't get into the court of law when the killer is still on the run.

 

[ric27]

The case hangs on the credibility of Zimmerman.

You're forgetting about this little thing called the "burden of proof"... In a criminal case (unless the defense asserts an affirmative defense - e.g. insanity) that burden rests solely with the prosecution.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything! Hell, defense counsel could sleep through the trial and, if the prosecution fails to prove allthe elements of the alleged crime, the accused will walk... Does that mean a snoring public defender has provided a 'more plausible explanation' of the events surrounding the crime?

This is getting tiresome. Your lynch mob mentality keeps confusing moral outrage with proof! This bull**** must stop

Wake up

 

[joko104]

Well, if we're going to make bald accusations of corruption.

I'll see your crooked federal investigators and raise you a daddy judge.

Wow, you have PROOF that the daddy judge has the original 911 tapes? That is awesome. That should be lead media story.

Of course, I can't prove that all all, can you? You have NOTHING or even any rational claim that Zimmerman's father has the original evidence. Just write anything claiming an offset.

In fact, an ex municipal magistrate is a nobody. You equating him to the same power as the President and Department of Justice is absurd.

They are some people have 100% total trust in the government and I you're one of those. REALLY Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, REALLY the N. Vietnamese DID attack the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin and REALLY that Spanish sunk the Maine - according to you. Anything the federal government says is 100% true - according to you.

I did not accuse of "crooked federal investigators." I posted there are great motivates on their part to reach certain conclusions - given all their jobs may depend upon the conclusion that they reach. One witness who gave a statement to the police and then on video to the media away for the police reversed what he saw as an eye witness only AFTER the DOJ had off-record privately spoke to him.

Since the DOJ as the orginal 911 call with someone yelling for help on it, they can "prove" whatever they want about what they say is the final original copy. The proof with NOT be the tape. The proof will be what the DOJ says the tape proves - then you believe them or not.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...on the run.

uh wut?
He's not a wanted man.

 

[j-mac]

uh wut?
He's not a wanted man.

Why sure he is, by TNBP, and Spike Lee....

What I want to know is when these New Black Panther racists are going to be arrested for levying a bounty on a mans head?

It is against the law to do that...


j-mac

 

[Karl]

[...] Regardless what happens in this case, Zimmerman brought this on himself when he got out of his car and began following Zimmerman. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. But. Getting out of one's car and walking up to someone is not against the law.

It can be if you wind up shooting that person dead.

However, you still misrepresent the facts -- Zimmerman was tracking Martin, after having called the police on him. Zimmerman's goal was to capture Martin (either himself or in concert with the police). Martin, quite literally, was being hunted -- with Zimmerman in the lead.

He was not approaching Martin to ask for directions.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What I want to know is when these New Black Panther racists are going to be arrested for levying a bounty on a mans head?
It is against the law to do that...
j-mac

Shows you haven't bothered to look and see if they were or not.

You may be very well informed, but you still don't know everything. You're lack of knowledge about an event, like the arrest, is not actually indicative of that thing not happening. ymmv

 

[Karl]

[...] Zimmerman's father says (paraphrased), "Martin asked my son if he had a problem. My son said no and reached for his cellphone." [...]

Nothing Zimmerman's father says can be trusted. Come on... no one is that gullible.

 

[MaggieD]

Nothing Zimmerman's father says can be trusted. Come on... no one is that gullible.

You don't get that that supports your position?

 

[Karl]

Where did you come across this claim that they [police] don't have his clothes? [...]

I have seen no claim one way or the other. My point was that if they had, then I would think Zimmerman's attorney (or Zimmerman himself) would advertise that fact in order to bolster Zimmerman's story.

And my ultimate point to Maggie was that Zimmerman's attorney is offering no evidence at all to the public circus that is quickly judging his client as guilty. Seems odd.

 

[MaggieD]

It can be if you wind up shooting that person dead.

Zimmerman's goal was to capture Martin (either himself or in concert with the police). Martin, quite literally, was being hunted -- with Zimmerman in the lead.

He was not approaching Martin to ask for directions.

Defense Attorney: "Objection. Calls for defendant's state of mind, your honor."

Judge: "Objection sustained."

Try again.

 

[Excon]

So are the recordings.
I see no reason to start throwing out evidence.

Who said anything about throwing evidence out?
What I am saying is what these guys did is not evidence. And it's not.

Pretty sure that determining who was screaming is a relevant fact.

It was already done. There is no reason to doubt the eye-witness's corroborated statement. None. Therefore no need for forensics.
And before you start saying that this is new evidence to consider - stop - just stop - it isn't.
This is an unofficial analysis of what - second or third generation recordings - not an official analysis of the actual recordings.
Yeah - that isn't going to be used at all.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I have seen no claim one way or the other. My point was that if they had, then I would think Zimmerman's attorney (or Zimmerman himself) would advertise that fact in order to bolster Zimmerman's story.
And my ultimate point to Maggie was that Zimmerman's attorney is offering no evidence at all to the public circus that is quickly judging his client as guilty. Seems odd.

In the end both of these things are merely your opinion. Not really a sign of anything other than your knowledge and imagination.

 

[Excon]

You imagined the two just stayed still in their position for eyewitnesses to ascertain who is doing what to whom and who is the one screaming.

WTF?
You are the one imagining what you think I am imagining, not actually anything to do with what I imagine or not imagine.

Heck, you can't even make out who was the one saying "I was asleep, Sir" in the Youtube video of a jail cell fighting in clear light and with replay button for you to play and yet you expect eyewitnesses in the dark to make out exactly who was the one screaming in a dynamic turbulent fight?

You really should have not brought that to this thread.
You were the one who was and still is wrong.
Get over it.

Inciting violence is a crime. And in this case, the crime lead to someone's death.

lol
Talk about over reaching.
Anyways...
No he didn't.

 

[Karl]

You're forgetting about this little thing called the "burden of proof"... In a criminal case (unless the defense asserts an affirmative defense - e.g. insanity) that burden rests solely with the prosecution.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything! [...]

In a SYG state, that is correct. In fact, in an SYG state there will be no criminal case (it's pretty much legal to kill people if no one is looking, provided you have at least a bloody nose).

In other states, the fact that Person A pursues Person B, then shoots and kills Person B means that Person A needs to come up with justification for doing so, other than 'I was skeered' (which is contradictory, since they pursued the encounter).

 

[Leo]

I am not in a position to comment upon the laws of the State of Florida, but in most jurisdictions based upon English Common Law, the plea of self defence is an affirmative defence. An affirmative defence requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff and the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. In this case, Zimmerman has pleaded guilty to killing Martin, but if it goes to court (which it must in any society governed by the rule of law,) he will be pleading self-defence in mitigation, not in negation of that fact. An affirmative defense can be different from a negating defense. A negating defense is one which tends to negate an essential element of the state's case.

But there is more latitude allowed in proving a case of self-defence - it need not always be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. In British Law, one only needs to have a genuine fear for one's life (or the life of another) for the plea in mitigation of self-defence to be accepted. 'The balance of probabilities' is the standard most likely to be applied in a case of self-defence, but a good enough case must be made to convince a jury of one's peers that the circumstances were of such gravity as to induce mortal fear - to the extent that he had no choice (no possibility of retreat or alternative action) but to kill someone - in a sane and reasonable person.

Irrespective of who threw the first punch, and who was in the process of getting his arse kicked - having instigated the conflict (by approaching someone who was not engaging in criminal or even civilly offense behaviour,) I am not sure even the lower standard of proof would find in Zimmerman's favour - especially given his minimal injuries. I am not however, familiar with US Law, so I will arrive at no legal conclusions. But I have come to some fairly clear moral ones in respect of this case.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Who said anything about throwing evidence out?

The recordings of the voices are evidence. The judge and the jury have a right to have expert testimony to help them determine issues of fact--like who it was screaming. The defense, the prosecution, and the judge can call expert witnesses if they do it correctly.

What I am saying is what these guys did is not evidence. And it's not.

No, it's not evidence in a court case that doesn't even exist. There is 0 evidence in that court case, because it doesn't exist. Should it go to court, if any of the involved parties, including the judge, decide to have it analyzed those conclusions will be entered into evidence. From what I have found, this sort of testimony is admissible and reasonably reliable. This means that what these guy's did could be replicated in the courtroom.
If someone knew that Z's gun had a defect that prevented it from working in the rain, that knowledge wouldn't be courtroom evidence either. Not until it was properly entered in the proceedings. But, if the point was true, it wouldn't change the fact that it was a valid point that has bearing on the case.
It's legitimate evidence for the venue we are in, an internet message board.

It was already done. There is no reason to doubt the eye-witness's corroborated statement. None. Therefore no need for forensics.

So you
say. I am not sure that your assertion has the power to make itself true though.

From what I have seen and posted about Florida's rules of evidence, there's not much to stop a similar analysis from being brought to bear should an actual court case come to be.

This is an unofficial analysis of what - second or third generation recordings - not an official analysis of the actual recordings.
Yeah - that isn't going to be used at all.

There's no official a lot of things because there's no court case ongoing. Doesn't really mean much. The findings should be replicable. And THOSE findings would be the ones which would be used as evidence.

You're splitting a hair that's not there, imho.

 

[Karl]

Try again.

If Zimmerman had not wanted Martin captured (at least for questioning), he would not have called 911. Nor would he have followed Martin in order to assist the police in tracking Martin prior to their arrival. His actions speak to his intent.

Objection overruled, and I caution the counselor to stop wasting the court's time with unfounded objections

 

[ric27]

It won't get into the court of law when the killer is still on the run.

Killer is still on the run????

So, an arrest warrant was issued?

Do you have any idea on what you are talking about?

Yup. fugitive apprehension????.....Lmao... get real, dude

 

[Ben K.]

I am not in a position to comment upon the laws of the State of Florida, but in most jurisdictions based upon English Common Law, the plea of self defence is an affirmative defence. An affirmative defence requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff and the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. In this case, Zimmerman has pleaded guilty to killing Martin, but if it goes to court (which it must in any society governed by the rule of law,) he will be pleading self-defence in mitigation, not in negation of that fact. An affirmative defense can be different from a negating defense. A negating defense is one which tends to negate an essential element of the state's case.

But there is more latitude allowed in proving a case of self-defence - it need not always be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. In British Law, one only needs to have a genuine fear for one's life (or the life of another) for the plea in mitigation of self-defence to be accepted. 'The balance of probabilities' is the standard most likely to be applied in a case of self-defence, but a good enough case must be made to convince a jury of one's peers that the circumstances were of such gravity as to induce mortal fear - to the extent that he had no choice (no possibility of retreat or alternative action) but to kill someone - in a sane and reasonable person.

Irrespective of who threw the first punch, and who was in the process of getting his arse kicked - having instigated the conflict (by approaching someone who was not engaging in criminal or even civilly offense behaviour,) I am not sure even the lower standard of proof would find in Zimmerman's favour - especially given his minimal injuries. I am not however, familiar with US Law, so I will arrive at no legal conclusions. But I have come to some fairly clear moral ones in respect of this case.

Which doesn't really make any sense. If things played out as Zimmerman said it did, it would certainly be illegal for Trayvon to assault him for simply approaching him - he would not be seen as the "instigator" in any juristiction. In any society, it would be Martin breaking the law. Where things differ is the proportionality of self defence, not who was in the wrong in the given hypothetical.

I was doubtful of how Zimmermans lawyer described the extent of the beating his client took in the beginning. A guy should or should not have a broken nose, not "probably" have one. A guy who supposedly had his head repeatedly bashed against the ground should be seeking immediate medical attention, not first aid with a further check up the next day. The video certainly supports the idea the "beating" he received was minimal, the may or may not be gash isn't even dressed.

 

[Karl]

Pretty sure that determining who was screaming is a relevant fact.

It was already done. There is no reason to doubt the eye-witness's corroborated statement. None.

Who corroborated the statement?

Therefore no need for forensics. [...]

So, a witness says he saw Person A shoot Person B with a pistol.

Forensics show that Person B suffered a shotgun wound.

Person A is convicted by the witness?

 

[Excon]

You're splitting a hair that's not there, imho.

Gawd!
People are grasping on to this as if it means something. It doesn't.
It is not evidence. It can't be used to charge him.

The only reason this is actually out there is to put doubt in the minds of those who are going to sit on the GJ.

 

[Karl]

Where did you come across this claim that they [police] don't have his clothes? [...]

I have seen no claim one way or the other. My point was that if they had, then I would think Zimmerman's attorney (or Zimmerman himself) would advertise that fact in order to bolster Zimmerman's story. And my ultimate point to Maggie was that Zimmerman's attorney is offering no evidence at all to the public circus that is quickly judging his client as guilty. Seems odd.

In the end both of these things are merely your opinion. Not really a sign of anything other than your knowledge and imagination.

Logical conclusion.

Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla ice cream is an opinion. Opinion does not require knowledge (other than, in this case, taste of the two items).

That both are equally fattening, even without reading the nutrition labels, is a logical conclusion.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Gawd! People are grasping on to this as if it means something. It doesn't.
It is not evidence. It can't be used to charge him.
The only reason this is actually out there is to put doubt in the minds of those who are going to sit on the GJ.

It doesn't have to be used to charge him. If it's good science, it's replicable. The prosecution, should there be one, or the defense, or the judge himself can ask for this sort of analysis. If it's good science, it's replicable. The replicated analysis is what would actually be used and what would be evidence in the court case.