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.
You have to be blind to reality to argue that the injuries to Zimmerman's face were not caused by Martin. Hardly worth debating with those who are so blind. I can guarantee the prosecution will not make that argument.
It isn't. As they say, ya can't fix stupid. There's a whole lot of that on these Sweet Little Trayvon threads.
I can't wait!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Why are you people so uninformed????
.
They get their information from circle-jerking each other here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
But DNA WAS found. Doesn't matter where. IT WAS FOUND! I don't care about some blog. The point is you lied, DNA WAS FOUND ON MARTIN!
BTW, That blog is so damn biased it is a joke.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Goofy blogs is all they have. And they somehow have the silly notion that links to said goofy blogs makes those goofy blogs more credible. Let them have their fun.
Here's the thing, I don't know if it's absolutely necessary to show who actually initiated the physical encounter. A jury could look at the totality of Zimmerman's behavior and decide that he was not acting in self-defense; that his confrontation with Martin was completely and utterly avoidable. It's complicated because on the one hand, the defense can claim that Zimmerman's acting lawfully, which he may have been up to a point, after which the circumstances and facts are unclear. At the same time, the prosecution can argue (persuasively, I think) that Zimmerman's conduct made a confrontation likely, or that the confrontation itself was largely unavoidable and that deadly force was not initially required but mainly required because of Zimmerman's series of bad decisions. This case will come down to which argument the jury finds more credible. The judges, of course, have a hand to play here, too. They are qualified to determine whether cases can even be legitimately argued in the first place, and if the courts decide that SYG prevents a legal case, then that could be that.
It won't surprise me at all if the jury ignores the law and decides it wasn't self defense because gz made a pile of decisions that resulted in him and tm finally facing each other. As of now, I don't believe 'avoidability' or prior bad decisions are strong legal argument
As I understand the law and the circumstances, even if the jury finds gz provoked the use of force against himself, it's self defense if he reasonably feared the force could result in serious physical injury. Even if the jury plays the 'it's possible that...' game [injuries were from falling, he inflicted them himself, etc.], it would then have to find that the killing itself satisfies the elements of murder 2.
"The only place where Zimmerman’s blood and DNA are present is Martin’s shirt, which he was wearing underneath the hooded sweatshirt." These bloodstains are consistent with dripped blood from Zimmerman’s wounds as he leaned forward above Martin’s body either before or after the shot, or transferred blood from Zimmerman’s hands as he handled Martin’s body.
There was no Zimmerman DNA in the fingernail cuttings from Martin, nor on Martin's hands.
So the DNA results do not support Zimmerman's contention that Martin was beating him so that he feared for his life.
SourD you should really go read the following blog by a criminal defense attorney who reviews all the evidence available.
Leatherman again ? He declared gz guilty of murder 1 before the arrest and spins everything to support his original position. Find someone else. Crump ?
As I understand the law and the circumstances, even if the jury finds gz provoked the use of force against himself, it's self defense if he reasonably feared the force could result in serious physical injury.
But the use of force by Martin (if there was any) could also be viewed as self-defense, in fear for his life, since he was being stalked by a gun-wielding lunatic.
Here's another thing you Trayvonistas need to take into account. Fearing for one's life is subjective and different for every single person. It is not something written in stone. Something that I fear for my life about, someone else might not. All that matters is if ZIMMERMAN felt fear for his life. THAT'S IT!
I guess it doesn't matter if Martin felt fear for his life then?
But the use of force by Martin (if there was any) could also be viewed as self-defense, in fear for his life, since he was being stalked by a gun-wielding lunatic.
wrong
1. trayvon was a football player sized young adult
2. trayvon was a KNOWN punk , who was suspended 3 trime from school
3. trayvon was last suspended from school on suspicion of drug use
4. zimmerman never took out the gun, so trayvon never could have feared a 'gun-wielding' person
5. trayvon attacked zimmerman, and there is eye witnesses to that
6. any alets look at trayvon and the tea and skittles: Turns out that we parents are unaware that there is a drug drink made from Arizona Watermelon drink and Skittles candy and then mixed with OVER THE COUNTER cough medicine (Robitussen and similar brands) that makes a very potent drug.
Not only is there now all sorts of evidence popping up that Trayvon Martin was abusing drugs, but it also is a warning to parents all over America that simple combinations of commonly available goods can be some serious drugs in the hands of our kids.
The drug is called LEAN or PURPLE LEAN. It is very likely that Trayvon Martin was on his way to make some more LEAN the night he was shot, the coroner's report shows that his liver was damaged in a way that is consistent with the use of LEAN/PURPLE LEAN.
Trayvon Martin was not only an illegal drug-user, but possibly a drug-dealer.
I guess it doesn't matter if Martin felt fear for his life then?
There has to be a physical confrontation before you can fear for your life under SYG. Being a ***** and being afraid of someone walking behind you doesn't count.
He is a moron either way. I don't see him keeping his story the same on the stand and them having a field day with him. I don't see him winning without going on the stand tho.
But the use of force by Martin (if there was any) could also be viewed as self-defense, in fear for his life, since he was being stalked by a gun-wielding lunatic.
Martin didn't know he had a gun. Try again.
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.
