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.
But it's great to hear that your speculation is perfectly valid, whereas others' is not. Real consistent position you've got there.
Valid? What do you mean by that? Speculation is speculation.
However, I do happened to know a little about the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure, and just a tiny bit about various laws, so some of the things I post do indeed have a valid basis. I am SPECULATING about how things happened that night. That means I'm "guessing" about how the events upfolded and why, based on my interpretation of the testimony I've heard and my ability to think creatively about these things. I'm not stating the speculation as a proven FACT. You're welcome to do the same.
If Zimmerman's jacket were zipped up, how in thee hell could he draw his gun with Martin on top?
And, even if he could, Martin would have grabbed his wrist with both hands and slammed the gun into the ground, over and over.
He had on what is known as an "inside the waistband" holster. It slips, well, inside the waistband of your pants and clips to your belt for support. It's a cheap nylon one, possibly an "Uncle Mikes". They are usually carried in the 4:00 position, behind the right hip. With a little bit of practice it's not hard to reach under a loose jacket and draw from one. While not the fastest type of holster to draw from, they are a reasonable balance between concealability, access and comfort.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You did say unlike some posters who keep stating with utter certainty not only what Zimmerman did but what he thought, and how Trayvon was incapable of doing something as evil as attacking another human being. Your theory...even if it doesn't fit the evidence or testimony very well.
Honestly, I'll wait for more evidence and testimony. About the only evidence to date that works badly for Z is the claim from the one lady that said the voice (calling/screaming for help) sounded more like a childs than an adult. I've never heard M speak, does he have sort of a "childlike" voice? I've always thought it somewhat odd how "mousy" Zimmerman's voice sounds. Far from a commanding, authoritative one. While all the visual observations seem to support Zimmerman's claims of SD. As I said earlier, the evidence from the gunshot wound will be a clincher. If the pathologist can determine that it was fired from say 20 feet away, I'd have a hard time believing SD in this case. While if it was say 2 foot or less, it would be much more likely.
My understanding is that Zs temper issues were some 7 years in the past, is this correct? While Ms multiple suspensions, episode with suspected stolen jewelry and burglary tools, as well as videos of violent fights and handguns were quite recent. While everyone is different, many people are much more mature and less prone to picking fights or committing crimes by their late twenties, than say their late teens. If we were introducing statements about past tempers...I'm not sure whose history would be more of a determining factor for the jurors.
How do you explain NO INJURIES on Trayvon's hands and no injuries on Zimmerman's hands? The Medical Examiner's report already states the gun was fired from intermediate range, 2 inches to 12 inches or 18 inches. I think he will give his opinion as to which end of that range is more likely.
IMO, people with "Temper" problems don't really out-grow that problem. They have to work very, very hard psychologically in order to be able to catch themselves with something triggers the anger. Many very insecure people get angry very quickly when they feel they have been humiliated. It's not just, well, I had anger issues 7 years ago, I took one anger management class, and I'm "cured."
Also Zimmerman has never shown an iota of remorse. Most people would be horrified to learn that they had shot an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store. Remember, Trayvon was not an intruder or burglar, and most people, when they found that out would be aghast at what they had done. He has never appeared the least bit upset, not right after the shooting, not at the police station where he appeared nonchalant, not during interviews, and not during the trial so far.
If he had been the one shrieking for his life, why was he so calm, cool, and collected immediately after the shooting? You would have expected him to still be panicked and upset. It is hard to believe someone would go from screaming and sounding totally panicked, to calm, in a few seconds. It doesn't make sense. He has never once appeared to be emotional when relating the "attack" or fighting for his life, but most people would have found that an extremely traumatic experience.
How do you explain NO INJURIES on Trayvon's hands and no injuries on Zimmerman's hands? The Medical Examiner's report already states the gun was fired from intermediate range, 2 inches to 12 inches or 18 inches. I think he will give his opinion as to which end of that range is more likely.
IMO, people with "Temper" problems don't really out-grow that problem. They have to work very, very hard psychologically in order to be able to catch themselves with something triggers the anger. Many very insecure people get angry very quickly when they feel they have been humiliated. It's not just, well, I had anger issues 7 years ago, I took one anger management class, and I'm "cured."
1) There were not "no injuries" on Martin's hands, per past news releases. There was an injury, though fairly small. It also looks as if most of his blows struck Zs nose. Just how much bruising of the hands does that cause. As to Z, it is reasonable to expect that he was trying to block Ms "MMA" punches. So hands would be striking hands. Again, how much injury would you expect? Though it's fair to wait for the forensics reports to come out on that.
2) I've seem the report stating that the round was fired at "intermediate" range, which in forensic speak means 1 inch to 3 feet, 2 to 8 inches or 2 to 12 inches, from the various news reports I've seen. Again, I'll wait for the pathologist to refine that number. In any case, the distance is in a range I would expect to see for someone in violent physical confrontation to fire from. Certainly any of the distances either of us has mentioned is well within "lethal threat" range, and also within a range one would expect in a violent, hand to hand fight.
3) His PA described Z as overweight with high blood pressure. Certainly not in peak condition. Whereas, based on the photos I've seen of M, he looks to be in prime health, tall and not carrying obvious extra weight. He also was a football player in the recent past. I think it's very reasonable that he would "take" Z in a fight. Which fits with witness testimony.
So, if we accept that M was on top and was punching Z in the face, we have a few possible scenarios.
a. M beat the tar out of Z and stood up and got off of him. Fights over and M is standing over Z. Z pulls out his gun and shoots him because he's pizzed and embarrased. Not likely since the ranges we both saw published for the GSW don't work.
b. M takes Z and is beating him in the face. He has victim down and he is continuing to swing and punch his defeated opponent. He does not stop, which places Z in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. This fits the testimony of today's witness (Jones?) who saw the guy with the red jacket on the ground being beat. And who saw the beating continue even after he attempted to intervene verbally. Z pulls his gun out and shoots to stop the attack, shooting as soon as he can get the gun clear of the holster and brought to bear. The forensics on the GSW (from what I understand) support this, with a shot from "intermediate" range. What will be very interesting is where any GSW residue is found on both and the angle of the entry wound on M.
c. Z is on top and is beating M about the face and head. M is screaming for him to stop. In a rage, Z pulls out his gun and shoots M, while sitting on his chest. While the GSW forensics with regards to range work, that doesn't fit any of the other testimony. It is Z that has the injuries to his face, back of his head and whose back is wet and covered with grass clippings. Let alone the witness that places M on top.
d. Your scenario where M is on top and beating Z. Z draws his gun and M goes for it while screaming for help when he sees the gun. This fits both the reports that M was on top, and that M was screaming. Keep in mind that the screams lasted considerable time, many seconds at least. It seems likely that if they were fighting for the gun that Ms hands would be all over the gun to keep it away from his body. That would most likely result in lacerations and contusions to his hands due to the front site of the gun, as well as his fingerprints and possibly DNA on the gun. I don't believe there was any evidence to support this, but again, we'll see as the trial continues. In addition, if M were on top and went for the gun, he's in a much better position to get both hands on the firearm, and to deflect the shot, if not actually take the gun from Z, especially if they fought for it for any period of time.
None of these scenarios fits all the evidence and testimony. In my opinion, "b" best fits the evidence, with the witness who heard the screaming being wrong about who was screaming (in line with Geos "mousy" voice). But again, I'll wait for the rest of the testimony before getting too attached to that theory.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 06-28-2013 at 11:28 PM..
Valid? What do you mean by that? Speculation is speculation.
However, I do happened to know a little about the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure, and just a tiny bit about various laws, so some of the things I post do indeed have a valid basis. I am SPECULATING about how things happened that night. That means I'm "guessing" about how the events upfolded and why, based on my interpretation of the testimony I've heard and my ability to think creatively about these things. I'm not stating the speculation as a proven FACT. You're welcome to do the same.
Nor was I genius.
Didn't stop you from using it as an excuse to try to show everyone what a brilliant legal mind you have.
Also Zimmerman has never shown an iota of remorse. Most people would be horrified to learn that they had shot an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store. Remember, Trayvon was not an intruder or burglar, and most people, when they found that out would be aghast at what they had done. He has never appeared the least bit upset, not right after the shooting, not at the police station where he appeared nonchalant, not during interviews, and not during the trial so far.
If he had been the one shrieking for his life, why was he so calm, cool, and collected immediately after the shooting? You would have expected him to still be panicked and upset. It is hard to believe someone would go from screaming and sounding totally panicked, to calm, in a few seconds. It doesn't make sense. He has never once appeared to be emotional when relating the "attack" or fighting for his life, but most people would have found that an extremely traumatic experience.
Why would he feel remorse when he felt "it was god's plan" that he kill an unarmed teenager?
Quote:
So George Zimmerman has no regrets about the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. "I feel it was all God's plan," he told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity
I think Zimmerman on the bottom fits the scenario that he was going for his gun the moment he hit the ground after being punched by Trayvon. That's why there were no injuries on his hands. He wasn't attempting to fight trayvon. He was attempting to get his gun and shoot him. Trayvon, the tall young man who weighed 158 lbs was trying to hold down a man weighing 204 lbs so the guy could not get his gun out of the holster because I have no doubt Trayvon feared for his life and knew this guy would shoot him if he were able to get that gun out of the holster. Therefore, Trayvon was the only one likely screaming for help to keep this guy from shooting him. His screams stopped instantly when George Zimmerman pulled the trigger, the gunshot was heard, and the bullet when through Trayvon's heart. You can hear that on the 911 tape. If Zimmerman was the one screaming for help, common sense tells us that he would have continued to scream for someone to call 911 after the gunshot was fired.
This makes sense to me. I've said from the beginning that it's odd that the screams stopped immediately after the gun went off, not seconds later. I've missed most of the trial, so I'm trying to catch up now. The witness who said he saw the 2 men struggling didn't mention it in his 911 call, did he? All he said was that someone was shot. Why didn't he mention the 2 men fighting during his 911 call?
Sorry if this has already been asked, but I think it's peculiar that he failed to mention he was outside and saw the struggle.
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.
