|
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 16 2013 00:47 Shiori wrote:
Frankly, I think self-defense laws are pretty prone to abuse in general. I understand why they exist, but I honestly don't really think that they should be invoked very often, because it seems to me like there's rarely ever a reason to use lethal force defending yourself unless you've already done something provocative. Not saying that's what happened here, but I confess that I always raise an eyebrow when someone pleads self defense in the case of a killing. It's very tricky when there's only one person's story.
Except forensic evidence tells it's own story as well...
|
On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question.
According to GZ and supported by evidence, Martin was the first one to engage in an unlawful activity, when he attacked GZ. So no, it wouldn't have helped him. It could obviously change things if he lived because he would testify, so we would have a diferent story, but we can't just imagine what he would say. It also would only be relevant if Martin was the one charged with something.
|
On July 16 2013 02:28 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:47 Shiori wrote:
Frankly, I think self-defense laws are pretty prone to abuse in general. I understand why they exist, but I honestly don't really think that they should be invoked very often, because it seems to me like there's rarely ever a reason to use lethal force defending yourself unless you've already done something provocative. Not saying that's what happened here, but I confess that I always raise an eyebrow when someone pleads self defense in the case of a killing. It's very tricky when there's only one person's story. Except forensic evidence tells it's own story as well...
Yes, self defense becomes much harder to prove without a witness or overwhelming evidence. You can't pull a South Park and just yell "He's comming right for me" and then unload.
|
On July 16 2013 01:55 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 01:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 01:25 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 01:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:I think the saddest part of all this is the idea that being a member of the neighborhood watch is "stupid". If we take Zimmerman's story as basically true (and there is no evidence that it isn't), than he did absolutely nothing wrong, or even stupid. He just tried to help his community out and got beat down for it. 100% on Trayvon, 0% on Zimmerman. On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote:On July 16 2013 00:55 Plansix wrote:
GZ did some dumb shit, no one will argue, but that is not a crime. And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. Self defense laws have existed as long as society has... stop acting like this is some radically new idea. Also, actually, what this trial did was prevent the creation of a legal precedent for little thugs to attack people without having to fear being shot. You have to ask why "little thugs*" even would go around attacking people. I'd be willing to bet that antagonizing them by threatening to kill them (which is the message you send when you characterize a very vague situation as a "little thug" attacking somebody without fear of being shot) you're not making them like the legal system anymore, and you're definitely not making it any easier for them to see responsible citizenship as a lifestyle to pursue. Why do little thugs go around attacking people? It's a complex question. People attack other people because they haven't been raised correctly, haven't been exposed to consequences for their actions, and have an inflated sense of entitlement. It's a really complex question. Amusingly, only one of the three reasons you gave is plausible (not being raised correctly, although I'd say "effectively" rather than correctly, since "correct parenting" is meaningless). Entitlement/lack of exposure to consequences are not the reasons people do bad things. Overwhelming research supports the notion that the chief causes of crime are problematic family situations and poverty. It has nothing to do with arrogance, lmao. Martin wasn't a Wall Street banked who thought he was better than everyone. Also, stop using the word thug, because I have no idea what you think it means and it just sounds like a buzzword of some kind. Problematic family situations and poverty create senses of entitlement, and usually result in children being sheltered from the consequences of their actions. Keep in mind that not any consequence suffices, proper consequences are what keeps people from becoming entitled. And you are absolutely wrong that entitlement is not a factor: "This guy annoyed me/insulted me" being a reason to physically assault someone means that you have a sense of entitlement that includes being entitled to not being insulted and/or annoyed.
You're being deliberately obtuse. But how do you think someone who comes from a shitty family and lives in an impoverished neighbourhood fraught with illegal activity and abuses is going to react to your picture of the legal system? Why should that person find anything noble about that system, when all it seems to be is a more powerful version of the criminal organizations within his neighbourhood (criminals, say, kill people who break their rules; you're going to try to appeal to people from crime-ridden neighbourhoods who haven't yet committed any crimes by scaring them with the exact same tactics????)
I would think that the person in the impoverished, crime ridden neighborhood would be pleased that his right to defend himself is supported by the government. And how is telling people that others have the rights to defend themselves scare people who won't attack others? That makes no sense...
We don't need to coddle them. We need to teach them why they should act like civilized human beings, because there has to be a reason that they aren't currently acting like one (and I'm willing to bet it's not because they have a self of entitlement, given how poor a lot of criminals are). Fighting violence with more violence, or making punitive measures to deter criminals, just makes it easier to see the justice system as something that's more interested in punishing than creating a better society.
You're utterly mistaken in thinking that monetary wealth has anything to do with entitlement. And you are completely missing the point: the government did not punish anyone here, they just upheld a man's right to defend himself. I cannot believe that you are suggesting that we deny the right of a law-abiding citizen to defend himself so that the poor criminals can feel better about themselves... this is such ivory tower bullshit that I can tell you have no experience whatsoever with criminals or poverty.
First off, nobody is labouring under the delusion that you can't defend yourself if you're attacked. Secondly, I'm not sure what school of sociology you come from, but it might interest you to know that people don't generally commit crimes to "flex their nuts." That is so astronomically stereotypical and ridiculous that I'm amazed you seriously uttered such a thing.
Do tell...
Um, what? What is a thug? Why is there one specific moment where one chooses to be forever a "thug" or not? This makes no sense.
Did I say that one chooses to be a thug forever or not at one specific moment? No... I didn't. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here... lol
The path he was on? What, aside from this case, evidence do we have to suggest that Martin was on some long path toward becoming a monster? We literally have zero evidence of his motivations because he is dead. I'm not saying his motivation was good, but to claim that he was doing it for some reason or another (or "no reason") is not a claim you can make since there's no actual evidence about Martin's motives being that he is dead.
Fighting, doing drugs, skipping school, engaging in criminal behavior... those are all signs of a thuggish mindset. Now... does that mean that Martin was going to be a thug, or that even currently was? Not really. A lot of respectable people had troubled childhoods. Martin was reaching the point where his childhood was ending. If he continued to engage in those behaviors without changing than he would have become what, in my opinion, could be described as a monster. A terror upon himself and others.
You do not know any of these things. This trial did not establish any of these things. This trial established that there is no evidence or not enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman acted aggressively and that, in light of that, his assertion that he acted in self-defense is consistent with the evidence (but not implied by the evidence; there is a crucial difference here that you're pretending doesn't exist). Let me say that again: this trial was not about Martin's motives. This trial was not about Martin's motives. Did I say the trial? Or did I say: according to the evidence? Why do you keep talking about the trial.
?????????????????????????????
I still don't understand why you're using the phrase "little thug." Nobody is trying to claim that Martin did nothing wrong, or that this verdict is wrong. All people are saying is that your ridiculous assertion that somehow this case is monumental in establishing that self defense is not illegal (despite it already being codified in the frickin' law) and that it'll strike fear into the hearts of all these "little thugs" nationwide who apparently just like to attack people for literally no reason. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the reason I don't attack people is because attacking people is wrong, not because I'm scared of being punished.
All you're saying. Don't include others when you're the only one who seems to not know what "thug" means. Did I say that the case was monumental in establishing self-defense? Nope. Did I say that it will strike fear into the hearts of thugs? Nope. And I don't know about you at all, nor do I care to know about you. I do know thuggish people though.
All physical evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's story, yes. Nobody is disputing that. There was no realistic narrative put forth that implicated Zimmerman, which is why nobody is arguing that this verdict was wrong. But your final sentence doesn't follow because Zimmerman's speculations about why Martin attacked him, in addition to the particulars of Zimmerman's narrative, do not necessarily have corresponding physical evidence.
I don't care about Martin's motives and I am not discussing them whatsoever. Stop bringing them up.
|
On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question.
Exchanging names doesn't work because Trayvon Martin was engaged in an unlawful activity by assaulting George Zimmerman, according to the evidence and testimony provided in this case. Killing the person assaulting you is only disturbingly simpler if there is no evidence or witnesses available to contradict your testimony.
If you were in George Zimmerman's position, is committing preemptive murder in order to avoid Martin's testimony worth the risk that key evidence or testimony is presented that proves beyond a doubt you committed murder? John Good testified that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin, so unless Martin could have come up with a witness that corroborated his hypothetical story that he was defending himself, we would be in the same boat.
People seem to think that anybody can go around and murder people and claim self defense, but that's a pretty steep risk to take in the event that somebody sees you or there is evidence to prove you were not in fact defending yourself. Also, I don't know of anyone sane who would want to go through the legal ringer in order to get away with murder in that fashion.
|
On July 16 2013 02:40 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote:If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question. Exchanging names doesn't work because Trayvon Martin was engaged in an unlawful activity by assaulting George Zimmerman, according to the evidence and testimony provided in this case. Killing the person assaulting you is only disturbingly simpler if there is no evidence or witnesses available to contradict your testimony. If you were in George Zimmerman's position, is committing preemptive murder in order to avoid Martin's testimony worth the risk that key evidence or testimony is presented that proves beyond a doubt you committed murder? John Good testified that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin, so unless Martin could have come up with a witness that corroborated his hypothetical story that he was defending himself, we would be in the same boat. People seem to think that anybody can go around and murder people and claim self defense, but that's a pretty steep risk to take in the event that somebody sees you or there is evidence to prove you were not in fact defending yourself. Also, I don't know of anyone sane who would want to go through the legal ringer in order to get away with murder in that fashion.
What we have from other witnesses (i.e. Good) is that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight (until he didn't, but no one witnessed the actual killing), and may have been the first to tackle GZ. But we have no witnesses really leading up to the confrontation. We have no witnesses that Trayvon was reaching for GZ's gun, which is what GZ says caused him to shoot Trayvon. If Trayvon had survived the shooting, what's to stop him from saying that he was simply grounding-and-pounding an armed man who verbally threatened to shoot him, and that he tackled GZ to the sidewalk out of desperate fear for his own life?
If Trayvon had survived the shooting it'd infuse the entire case with a counter-narrative. The entire case was the prosecutors having to disprove GZ's narrative of what happened that night, which they obviously could not do. GZ's story gives him reasonable doubt, and that's the end of it. That's a lot simpler for the jury than having two counter-narratives.
I'm not talking about preemptive or pre-meditated murder, I'm not saying that GZ intended or plotted this out. I'm just saying if you're in a fight with someone without any substantial witnesses (someone who didn't just witness part of the fight, but the before and after as well) and feel you need to shoot the guy "for fear of your own life" -- make sure you kill him. It seems to make the court process a lot more one-dimensional.
I'm not even really complaining, as I don't know if there's anything better our system can really do about this problem. It's just something I find weird.
|
On July 16 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 02:28 Artax wrote:On July 16 2013 00:47 Shiori wrote:
Frankly, I think self-defense laws are pretty prone to abuse in general. I understand why they exist, but I honestly don't really think that they should be invoked very often, because it seems to me like there's rarely ever a reason to use lethal force defending yourself unless you've already done something provocative. Not saying that's what happened here, but I confess that I always raise an eyebrow when someone pleads self defense in the case of a killing. It's very tricky when there's only one person's story. Except forensic evidence tells it's own story as well... Yes, self defense becomes much harder to prove without a witness or overwhelming evidence. You can't pull a South Park and just yell "He's comming right for me" and then unload.
The burden of proof was on proving it wasn't self-defense, no? In that case the verdict makes perfect sense.
|
On July 16 2013 03:01 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 02:40 ZasZ. wrote:On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote:If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question. Exchanging names doesn't work because Trayvon Martin was engaged in an unlawful activity by assaulting George Zimmerman, according to the evidence and testimony provided in this case. Killing the person assaulting you is only disturbingly simpler if there is no evidence or witnesses available to contradict your testimony. If you were in George Zimmerman's position, is committing preemptive murder in order to avoid Martin's testimony worth the risk that key evidence or testimony is presented that proves beyond a doubt you committed murder? John Good testified that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin, so unless Martin could have come up with a witness that corroborated his hypothetical story that he was defending himself, we would be in the same boat. People seem to think that anybody can go around and murder people and claim self defense, but that's a pretty steep risk to take in the event that somebody sees you or there is evidence to prove you were not in fact defending yourself. Also, I don't know of anyone sane who would want to go through the legal ringer in order to get away with murder in that fashion. What we have from other witnesses (i.e. Good) is that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight (until he didn't, but no one witnessed the actual killing), and may have been the first to tackle GZ. But we have no witnesses really leading up to the confrontation. We have no witnesses that Trayvon was reaching for GZ's gun, which is what GZ says caused him to shoot Trayvon. If Trayvon had survived the shooting, what's to stop him from saying that he was simply grounding-and-pounding an armed man who verbally threatened to shoot him, and that he tackled GZ to the sidewalk out of desperate fear for his own life? If Trayvon had survived the shooting it'd infuse the entire case with a counter-narrative. The entire case was the prosecutors having to disprove GZ's narrative of what happened that night, which they obviously could not do. GZ's story gives him reasonable doubt, and that's the end of it. That's a lot simpler for the jury than having two counter-narratives. I'm not talking about preemptive or pre-meditated murder, I'm not saying that GZ intended or plotted this out. I'm just saying if you're in a fight with someone without any substantial witnesses (someone who didn't just witness part of the fight, but the before and after as well) and feel you need to shoot the guy "for fear of your own life" -- make sure you kill him. It seems to make the court process a lot more one-dimensional. I'm not even really complaining, as I don't know if there's anything better our system can really do about this problem. It's just something I find weird.
That's not exchanging the victim though. You wouldn't replace Martin as the one who had the right to defend himself, you would just add another witness to the case, one that would testify that GZ was engaged in an unlawful activity before the conflict. Sure it would change a lot about the case, but that's not really what you originally said.
|
On July 16 2013 03:12 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 02:28 Artax wrote:On July 16 2013 00:47 Shiori wrote:
Frankly, I think self-defense laws are pretty prone to abuse in general. I understand why they exist, but I honestly don't really think that they should be invoked very often, because it seems to me like there's rarely ever a reason to use lethal force defending yourself unless you've already done something provocative. Not saying that's what happened here, but I confess that I always raise an eyebrow when someone pleads self defense in the case of a killing. It's very tricky when there's only one person's story. Except forensic evidence tells it's own story as well... Yes, self defense becomes much harder to prove without a witness or overwhelming evidence. You can't pull a South Park and just yell "He's comming right for me" and then unload. The burden of proof was on proving it wasn't self-defense, no? In that case the verdict makes perfect sense.
Self Defense is a defense to any violent crime that you could be charged with. You need meet a number of prongs to bring a self defense claim, most important being "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm". The DA needs to "over come" these defenses to prove their case.(this is super simplistic law 101). The defendant still needs to prove that they meet the prongs of a self defense. You can't just claim self defense in every murder case, there needs to be some evidence to back it up.
There is a good example of from Florida when a woman fired a warning shot has her abusive boyfriend where she did not meet the prongs of self defense in her use of deadly force(the warning shot). The Judge ruled that she did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the time she fired the shot.
|
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself.
|
On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself.
DNA can be destroyed.
There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either.
|
On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question.
Depending on what Trayvon said, the trial could range from GZ being charged with attempted murder to TM being charged with attempted murder.
|
On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either.
According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA.
Link here:+ Show Spoiler +
Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands?
|
On July 16 2013 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either. According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA. Link here: + Show Spoiler +Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands?
Rain and that they didn't test for it. Who knows? It doesn't really prove anything since there was an eye witness to the end of the struggle who confirmed much of GZ's story.
|
On July 16 2013 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either. According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA. Link here: + Show Spoiler +Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands?
He just told you - DNA can be destroyed. All it takes is for part of the DNA to degrade and you can no longer conclusively say that the DNA found belongs to a particular person.
If you want a more comprehensive explanation watch the trial.
|
On July 16 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either. According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA. Link here: + Show Spoiler +Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands? Rain and that they didn't test for it. Who knows? It doesn't really prove anything since there was an eye witness to the end of the struggle who confirmed much of GZ's story.
All right thanks.
|
On July 16 2013 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either. According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA. Link here: + Show Spoiler +Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands?
DNA evidence like blood? We don't know when Zimmerman actually started bleeding after he was punched. The prosecutor demonstrated putting his hand on Zimmerman's bloody face photo but Zimmerman had been upright for some time after the shooting thus letting blood flow down. Also it was raining and they didn't do the best job of preserving evidence, using plastic instead of paper which could destroy DNA
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 16 2013 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I heard that there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands. Is that true? Is there a source that shows otherwise? Just curious how TM pummeled GZ without getting any of GZ's DNA on himself. DNA can be destroyed. There's no GZ DNA on his pistol's trigger either. According to all the articles that came up on Google, there was GZ's DNA on his gun, but not TM's DNA. Link here: + Show Spoiler +Does anyone else have an explanation for why there was no DNA evidence of GZ found on TM's hands?
I also found this interesting but I think it's mostly due to their lack of preservation as in they didn't preserve well so it got degraded or God knows what happened lol since I don't think rain will just wash it off that easily(not saying it doesn't).
|
DNA
The existence of DNA on certain objects can be used for arguing.
The lack of DNA is worth jackshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
