|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick?
"has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight."
"why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude.
a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think?
|
On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think?
Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot.
I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances.
/edit
To reach for a gun, you have see a gun.
|
On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun.
Unless Zimmerman had a license to have a concealed firearm, his firearm must be out in the open and visible. One is allowed to carry a visible, unconcealed weapon with a permit, so I would think Trayvonn could see the gun in this case.
|
On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you successfully draw it from prone position and shoot the person on to you? What is this, a Cowboy flick?
What were GZ's options then? To simply try to keep TM away from his gun while losing the fight in the first place?
|
On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun.
zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long.
and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake.
something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us.
|
On July 05 2013 09:39 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. Unless Zimmerman had a license to have a concealed firearm, his firearm must be out in the open and visible. One is allowed to carry a visible, unconcealed weapon with a permit, so I would think Trayvonn could see the gun in this case.
the gun was concealed under his sweater/jacket. there is no dispute about that. when the cops came, zimmerman lifted his right arm straight up in the air and bent to the side to reveal the gun. during the trial, we were allowed a glimpse of O'Mara's white ass belly because he demonstrated.
|
On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us.
I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water.
|
On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water.
Nothing you have said, nor the state has said, has made his story unbelievable.
Edit: Are you watching the trial at all?
|
On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water.
except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far.
|
On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water.
There's been no substantial evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story so far. Therefore, if the jurors rule as they are instructed to, they must view his take on the events as true.
|
|
|
On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far.
The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun.
|
On July 05 2013 10:38 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far. The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun.
im going to agree with the other guy. you sound like you dont know what you are talking about. John Good testified there was a struggle where trayvon was on top of zimmerman in a MMA ground and pound style (or something of that sort). the fact that trayvon's dna wasnt on the gun means jack shit in the grand scheme of things--especially considering the rain and the sanford police department's admitted inability to process a crime scene.
|
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money.
|
On July 05 2013 10:38 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far. The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun.
I am not trying to call you out, but it really sounds like you are not following this case at all. Zimmerman has NEVER claimed Trayvon put his hand on the gun. He said he was being beaten, tried calling out for help, and felt Trayvon saw and reached for his gun. That is when Zimmerman claims to have grabbed the gun and fired the shot. Nothing has gone against that claim yet.
|
Am I a terrible human being for finding this hysterical?
|
On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money.
The manslaughter charge really isn't materially better than the murder charge in this case. The problem for the prosecution is disproving self defense, which beats either charge. They just don't have any compelling evidence that conclusively rebuts Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.
|
On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money.
Not that the prosecution is inept, I don't think the state ever had a case. If Zimmerman is acquitted, they will try to make out the prosecution as inept, point at improper investigation, blame racist jurors, etc. Blame everything except that they never had a case to start with. States' own witnesses have corroborated much of Zimmerman's version of events.
|
On July 05 2013 11:31 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money. Not that the prosecution is inept, I don't think the state ever had a case. If Zimmerman is acquitted, they will try to make out the prosecution as inept, point at improper investigation, blame racist jurors, etc. Blame everything except that they never had a case to start with. States' own witnesses have corroborated much of Zimmerman's version of events.
This is exactly correct.
|
On July 05 2013 10:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:38 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children.
Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point.
There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far. The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun. im going to agree with the other guy. you sound like you dont know what you are talking about. John Good testified there was a struggle where trayvon was on top of zimmerman in a MMA ground and pound style (or something of that sort). the fact that trayvon's dna wasnt on the gun means jack shit in the grand scheme of things--especially considering the rain and the sanford police department's admitted inability to process a crime scene.
I know it is not believable that Zimmerman could draw his weapon and shoot it without Trayvon trying to defend himself IF Trayvon was indeed reaching for the weapon from a mounted position.
I don't claim that it means anything in the grand scheme of things. There will be no guilty verdict with enough doubt to create a rift in the fabric of the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://images.4chan.org/pol/src/1372982332337.png)
