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.
Why is this fighting expert allowed to speculate about everything? Including what George was thinking when he didn't want to give out his address to the non-emergency dispatch.
Right. This entire expert's testimony has been about "if this happened...and then if this happened..." ...if if if...
All speculation. If Zimmerman has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he have told the witness, who is testifying on his behalf, the story about the fight? -- the specific details.
This "expert" is even getting on MY nerves. He is not very likeable. He talks too much. He is "elaborating" far too much, IMO. Did I just hear him talking about people with and "attorney mind-set" reacting to such an incident?
Let's see, George is "not the confrontational type"....that must be why George reacted the way he did toward his former girlfriend and that cop in the bar that night. Seems as if this expert did not read all the records related to zimmerman.
There are two pieces of George's scenario that I find a bit suspicious, even though I believe the bulk of his story and think he is innocent of 2dm.
1) Others have brought up the 30-40 feet from the Tee where the body was found. This is reasonable if a "fight" took place, it's easy enough to see two people rolling around and moving that far. However, Z's claim is that this was an "assault" where M came out of the darkness and confronted him and struck him, while he was AT the Tee. Evidence supports that there was no "rolling around" and that Z was on his back being punched. Which would pretty much mean he didn't move from where he went down. If so, how did he cover the distance from the Tee?
2) Z stated that he spread Ms hands and was trying to hold him down after the shooting. OK, given the situation I might buy that, thought it might not be my reaction. However, he also said that he had the gun in his hand and reholstered it when he saw the LEO coming up to him. Also smart and very reasonable. However...that would mean the gun was still in his hand while he was spreading Ms hands. Not a real likely thing to do....I can't see any scenario where you would put your firearm right at the hands of the guy you were concerned about.
Like I say, I buy the bulk of his story as fitting the evidence and testimony better than various opposing, and often very far fetched, theories I've seen. Just a couple inconsistencies I have trouble wrapping my head around.
There are always inconsistencies in witness testimony and statements. In this case, the two items you list have always been my greatest questions. They've had a couple of experts sorta kinda beat around the bushes on those, and Guy is bringing this back up at certain times, dangling it around like a open questions, which they still are.
But the most important part of an event like this is the actual crime scene evidence. Guy just brought it up a short time ago. Zimmerman's statements and re-enactment don't match up to the crime scene evidence, At All. These aren't inconsistencies, but rather, dramatic differences. It's about the only thing left that I haven't seen or heard any reasonable explanation at all.
To highlight the importance of this #1 you list, it strikes at the very heart of the origins of the initial conflict. When I saw the small light/keychain near the tee, my first guess was that it fell out of Z's pocket there, and probably not as he was casually walking.
For this to have happened at the Tee, you'd have to assume they wrestled and rolled all the way the the endpoint. That would also indicate that Z's wounds could have come from this activity. But that's speculation, and I know Z's fans hate that. Perhaps the prosecution has used just this point in the trial to nail home these points. I don't think they're winning points, as there is nothing in evidence or witness testimony that could prove it.
Hence, while I think Zimmerman will be acquitted, I still think he's lying, and had far more to do with the escalation than his statements indicate.
Defense said they were going to be done today (a fews days ago) so she asked him because she wanted him to answer and not his attorneys. I would think they had already discussed that. It wasn't a trick question.
Nothing in that statement "a few days" is enforceable by the judge. If they want to drag it out they can her job is to sit there and referee, not intimidate the defendant.
She is a POS, and has displayed all the worse attributes of what a judge should be.
Why is this fighting expert allowed to speculate about everything? Including what George was thinking when he didn't want to give out his address to the non-emergency dispatch.
I agree. I can't believe the State is letting him elaborate and offer opinion on stuff in which he has not established any expertise, like reading the mind of the defendant.
Oh. I see an attorney saying that perhaps the witness opened the door to bringing in Zimmerman's reputation when the witness said that George wasn't the confrontational type.......
The State seems to be screwing up again by letting him go on and on and on.....about things beyond the scope of his expertise.
There are always inconsistencies in witness testimony and statements. In this case, the two items you list have always been my greatest questions. They've had a couple of experts sorta kinda beat around the bushes on those, and Guy is bringing this back up at certain times, dangling it around like a open questions, which they still are.
But the most important part of an event like this is the actual crime scene evidence. Guy just brought it up a short time ago. Zimmerman's statements and re-enactment don't match up to the crime scene evidence, At All. These aren't inconsistencies, but rather, dramatic differences. It's about the only thing left that I haven't seen or heard any reasonable explanation at all.
To highlight the importance of this #1 you list, it strikes at the very heart of the origins of the initial conflict. When I saw the small light/keychain near the tee, my first guess was that it fell out of Z's pocket there, and probably not as he was casually walking.
For this to have happened at the Tee, you'd have to assume they wrestled and rolled all the way the the endpoint. That would also indicate that Z's wounds could have come from this activity. But that's speculation, and I know Z's fans hate that. Perhaps the prosecution has used just this point in the trial to nail home these points. I don't think they're winning points, as there is nothing in evidence or witness testimony that could prove it.
Hence, while I think Zimmerman will be acquitted, I still think he's lying, and had far more to do with the escalation than his statements indicate.
Of course he is lying but, I am not sure they can prove it.
Nothing in that statement "a few days" is enforceable by the judge. If they want to drag it out they can her job is to sit there and referee, not intimidate the defendant.
She is a POS, and has displayed all the worse attributes of what a judge should be.
Judge Judy could would have wrapped this up in 30 minutes.
Why is this fighting expert allowed to speculate about everything? Including what George was thinking when he didn't want to give out his address to the non-emergency dispatch.
The states whole case is SPECULATION!!!! All you and others can do is speculate because you have no damn case
Do you not think he started trying to reaching for his weapon the moment he was on his back?
Isn't that what you would do if you had a concealed weapon?
No, I don't. Once he is on his back and being struck in the face, I think his first reaction would be to block the blows to his face. Ever been punched in the nose? It freekin' hurts! I think his first reaction would be to block the blows, rather than reach for his gun.
In the course of the confrontation, if his first reaction was to reach for the gun, he'd have his hand on it and have it drawn as soon as he M came out of the darkness in close proximity and asked "why are you following me". Or, as some claim, if he were "running down" M with intent to shoot him, he'd have it in his hand. In which case, I have trouble seeing how he would have been struck in the face, ended up on his back screaming for a minute or more and had injuries to the back of his head.
Honestly, CCW laws get a little strange with when you can legally draw a firearm. I believe this varies by state, but there are very few cases where you are legal to draw and threaten someone with a firearm if you aren't in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. And drawing and walking down the sidewalk with it in your hand would be a big no-no. If I were in the scenario that Z described, on the path trying to observe M while talking to dispatch (not saying this is what happened), and had lost sight of the guy I was concerned about, I'd probably transfer my handgun from my IWB holster to a front jacket pocket if wearing one, and have my hand on it. At that point, I'm still "legal", the gun isn't out and menecing. But I could keep my hand on it and if absolutely necessary fire through the jacket if attacked. This isn't necessarily what a CCW instructor would teach though.
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.
