Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Multiple very knowledgeable people have tried to recreate the entire sequence of events without altering from what Zimmerman claimed happened. The "dummy reenactment" you mention wasn't a dummy reenactment and wasn't done by the DA. It was a cardboard cut-out reenactment done by someone associated with the defense, and it was only of the fatal shot itself and not of the series of events in the fight. There were numerous problems with the cardboard cut-out reenactment, but that's a tale for another post.
None of them, DA included, has tried a live reenactment or a dummy reenactment and been able to successfully do it without changing substantial details from Zimmerman's narrative. If you disagree, please post a link to this reenactment you allege exists.
And yes, it is Dr. D, and yes, I am an expert who can testify in court on these matters. In fact, I was approached to testify in the Zimmerman case but couldn't do so due to prior knowledge of the defendant and his medical history.
Okay, I was being a tad facetious with my requests for detail from the "medical experts" above, but if you have the knowledge you claim to have, both about these matters in general, and about attempts at re-enactments by knowledgeable people, I really would be interested in seeing those details. Who has attempted these re-enactments and what were the problems?
Whatever anyone thinks of the SYG law, I'd like to see opinions based on an understanding of the law. SYG is nothing at all like what you describe here. Not even close.
Anyone with solid knowledge of standard U.S. law about self-defense, and how it compares to the SYG provision in Florida's law (". . . does not have a duty to retreat . . ."), will understand that SYG was not even relevant in the Zimmerman-Martin case.
And the evidence--not some picture someone just got into his head of how it musta gone down, but evidence--does not support what you describe in the passage in bold. Not even close.
It might not be written like that, but it is clearly used in that manner in the courts here.
Also, show me this "evidence" that does NOT support that Zimmerman followed a kid walking home from the store. I'd like to see this.
It's clear that by showing of photo of him at 12 years old they were truly attempting the old rope a dope. They did not want to show what he was really like when he was sent to his maker.
How about quoting ALL of my sentence before trying to make it look like I don't know this for a fact? The picture YOU posted is NOT of Trayvon. Is that clear enough for you? I did not say I "believe". There are countless pictures on the internet of fake pic's of TM. You happened to post the most famous fake. The real person pictured was even interviewed and enjoyed the notoriety.
And like another poster said, the younger picture, (not proved TM was only 12) was probably the easiest to supply. If your child is killed, I want to see you go through your photo albums to pick the most recent photo. We don't even know for sure who gave that one to the public.
To everyone using thug and the like, thank you for showing the rest of us your true colors. Its amazing how we who think GZ got away with murder, are just writing his name and what he did. You guys on the other hand have to demonize Trayvon and call him names. Says a lot about a person, doesn't it? I personally wont talk bad about anyone who's passed, even if I didn't care about them. I can only hope Karma is the real biotch they claim it is.
And as far as believing GZ's story, keep in mind Trayvon didn't get the chance to tell his side. GZ made sure of that. Just picture some stranger trying to detain you, in the dark, acting all mighty powerful, and ask yourself what you would do. IF Trayvon hit GZ at all, it was because he was trying to get away. Now would GZ admit that? And why should TM run into the apartment and lead this scary guy to the younger young child inside? Bottom line, there was some political crap going on with this circus of a trial. It was like no other I've ever seen. Prosecutors who didn't even try and pretend they were doing their best.
Yeah, all of that was fabricated. I'm not even sure how much he "got his butt kicked", really, since there was not a lot of time involved, but I think after T asked why he was being followed, there was an immediate reaction by Z, the weakling. So they may have ultimately been on the ground and surely T needed to defend himself, but I think the impulse by Z to shoot was quick, having been hyped to react from the beginning of the stalk. (And none of the "fake dialogue" or actions we were told, transpired).
As I mentioned, his motivation was that he was "going to catch someone no matter what, so he could be looked up to, once and for all". If it would have just been analyzed - his mentality and history - his emotional makeup says it all: He had continually FAILED and needed a way to look good at any cost...it seems that nobody delved into or considered this being a motivator.
How does that and more become overlooked in a trial??
Now a professional psychologist weighs in. I'm interested in knowing as much as possible about this case, so I'd be interested in seeing details of your professional opinion.
Being the expert you apparently are, you must know that the analyses of laymen about what's "obvious" because of what "seems" to be someone's personality or psychological makeup can be way off. I'd be interested in your expert analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
No DNA found on either of them, for all of "that struggle".
No signs of what Z described occurring, being on his clothing.
That he stated he was "the one screaming" .. (while T "covered his mouth and nose"during).
That at the same time, T was also able to "use hands to punch slam Z's head on ground".
That there "was dialogue going on", despite this.
That T "was able to reach for the gun", underneath him (but said "I think he saw it).
Z not having to go to a hospital, though "so brutally beaten".
There clearly would have been more damage done, if so.
That T's body was found in a different spot than struggle occurred.
That he had kept altering his story...
Could his father have had that much influence to keep him from being convicted?
Even though apparently you are an expert in psychology, here you are clearly out of your area of knowledge. There are a number of points you make here that a person with knowledge of criminal investigation and the law (of which I am one) would not regard as having the significance you attach.
I singled out your statement about DNA because in that case, before we even consider the question of whether your observation carries much weight, let's look at the fact that you don't even have your information correct. NO DNA found on either of them? This copy of the report on DNA begs to differ:
Even if there had been no DNA found, there are at least two reasons that this would not necessarily mean much:
1) As I once heard said by a lawyer analyzing a case on a current events show on television, "The presence of DNA speaks more loudly than the absence of DNA."
DNA can be degraded or destroyed by the elements. My experience in law enforcement predates the use of DNA in criminal investigations, but based on what I've gained in general knowledge since then, water is particularly likely to compromise DNA. It was raining that night. There's also some question about whether the Sanford police officers correctly handled the clothing they took as evidence.
The bottom line is that the absence of DNA may mean something relevant (in this case or any other) or it may just mean that DNA that was there has been destroyed by the elements, or mishandling of the evidence.
2) In several threads about this case you're not the first person I've seen make this erroneous claim about a complete lack of DNA. Okay, I was jabbing at you about your implied expertise in psychology, but now I'm seriously asking what you think a lack of DNA is supposed to prove. The only possibility I can think of is that this is supposed to indicate that there never was any contact between GZ and TM, but that GZ just walked up and shot TM, or something like that.
In this case, there is other evidence of contact between the two. For example, several witnesses saw one of them on top of the other, striking him repeatedly in the face. They're not all in agreement about who was on top. It's necessary to look at various pieces of evidence to determine how the whole encounter played out. But those witness statements alone are enough to establish that there was contact between the two men. Zimmerman did not just walk up and shoot Martin. The lack of DNA would not prove that he did.
And that's if it were even accurate to say no DNA was found, which it's not.
Back to:
WHY WASN'T GZ'S PSYCHOLOGICAL HISTORY EXAMINED?
Only the lawyers involved in the trial could positively answer your question about why GZ's psychological history was not examined and presented as evidence. I can suggest some possible reasons:
1) Lawyers would need to be very careful about how to present such information for it to be admitted as evidence. Court hearings and determinations of guilt are supposed to involve facts about the case in question, not speculation about what someone might or might not have done because of the kind of person he seems to be.
2) There are enough facts here to determine what most likely happened, without getting into such speculation. However, it takes a consideration of all the evidence, and an understanding of how to piece it all together.
Time and again on threads about this case I've seen people cite one or two pieces of evidence and claim that this proves their point. It does not. Using a few cherry-picked bits of evidence might work if you just want to satisfy yourself that you're correct in the way you decided from the beginning that you wanted to see things. If you really want to know the truth, you need to carefully put together every piece of evidence.
Whatever anyone thinks of the SYG law, I'd like to see opinions based on an understanding of the law. SYG is nothing at all like what you describe here. Not even close.
Anyone with solid knowledge of standard U.S. law about self-defense, and how it compares to the SYG provision in Florida's law (". . . does not have a duty to retreat . . ."), will understand that SYG was not even relevant in the Zimmerman-Martin case.
It might not be written like that, but it is clearly used in that manner in the courts here.
Sounds as if you must live in FL
Since I've made a couple of recent posts where I was facetious about assertions that would require an expertise the persons posting pretty clearly lacked, I need to say here that I'm serious. I seriously would be interested in knowing whether you can actually cite cases where SYG has been used this way, and seeing an explanation of why you feel this was so.
If you can do that, great. If not, well, there is a big difference between what one actually knows to be so and what one "knows" because everyone says that's how it is.
By the way, SYG is not relevant in this case anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
And the evidence--not some picture someone just got into his head of how it musta gone down, but evidence--does not support what you describe in the passage in bold. Not even close.
Also, show me this "evidence" that does NOT support that Zimmerman followed a kid walking home from the store. I'd like to see this.
Of course he followed him. Everyone knows that. You made more claims than this in the post I quoted. It was some of your other claims I was referring to.
Your assertions that were significant from a legal standpoint (which the mere act of following under the circumstances would not be) are not supported by evidence. In fact, evidence contradicts those assertions.
Yikes! Whatever your picture of how this all happened, this is kind of a cavalier attitude toward a case where a 17-year-old boy died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickyInDeerPark
You mean a 17 year old punk died as a result of him beating a mans head on the sidewalk don't you?
Funny thing is, I agree that the evidence shows that Zimmerman broke no law, and, in legal terms, acted lawfully in self-defense.
It's just that I'd prefer to keep this discussion on an even keel. I just happened to feel that your post which I quoted was in especially poor taste. Not impressed with your post about "a sudden craving for Skittles" either.
You've made at least one good point that I recall. In at least one post, you pointed out that the evidence did not support the assertion made by the person you were quoting, and you were correct. That was a sensible response. Why not keep all your posts on that level?
I don't believe there's a debate anymore. As we can see from these "debates."
There was obvious wrongdoing that took place. It wasn't on TM.
Much of this comes from individuals personal experiences and ideological persuasion. For instance the tough guy gun comment you made.
Short of a weapon, someone like TM would not have gotten the better of me, so there would be no need for me to pull my CCW to stop his attack. Yet I am not like most people in size or training, so I cannot pronounce what is right for me is right for everyone else. GZ might have been brave because he had the gun, who knows for sure.
As to the comment about wrongdoing, I tend to agree, at least in the beginning. GZ said TM was essentially up to no good, not knowing him from Adam. So his perspective was probably colored by all the previous incidents in his neighborhood. So IF TM was looking into peoples back porches/homes, he might not have been up to no good, who knows for sure. Regardless, once he decided to engage GZ for whatever reason, he then added to the problem and was guilty of wrongdoing himself. Prior to that, he was innocent of any crime.
Yikes! Whatever your picture of how this all happened, this is kind of a cavalier attitude toward a case where a 17-year-old boy died.
Obviously a racist troll who feels empowered to post that filth here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't even know for sure who gave that one to the public.
Its amazing how we who think GZ got away with murder, are just writing his name and what he did. You guys on the other hand have to demonize Trayvon and call him names. Says a lot about a person, doesn't it? I personally wont talk bad about anyone who's passed, even if I didn't care about them. I can only hope Karma is the real biotch they claim it is.