Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Look, I found more 'evidence' like you posted earlier !

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26450http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_500444fea3bd6bdb29.jpg
The guy forgot to add the red line, but it's just like you thought !
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18526
(1) There is no way GZ could pull his gun as described. On his back with his holster against his hip, his holster inside his waistband, while being pinned by TM who is supposedly straddling him....
(5) Finally, the path of the bullet in TM’s body is not possible from the position described , and really is only possible if both men are standing AND GZ’s arm is extended straight.

Do you not agree that grabbing your gun in that position would be very difficult?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Kidding aside, it does seem as though it would be difficult to pull a gun out of a holster and shoot someone that is straddling you. Can one of the knowledgeable gun owners comment on that? I should note that it seems to me as though it would be even more difficult if the person straddling you was fighting you for it or actually aware you even had it. In other words, if it is possible, might that suggest TM was beating on him without being aware GZ even had or was going for a gun? That seems to me that it would also help explain why GZ was screaming and getting his ass handed to him, only to suddenly be able to end it with a shot. My assumption was always that TM did not know he had the gun.

 

[triforcharity]

Kidding aside, it does seem as though it would be difficult to pull a gun out of a holster and shoot someone that is straddling you. Can one of the knowledgeable gun owners comment on that? I should note that it seems to me as though it would be even more difficult if the person straddling you was fighting you for it or actually aware you even had it. In other words, if it is possible, might that suggest TM was beating on him without being aware GZ even had or was going for a gun? That seems to me that it would also help explain why GZ was screaming and getting his ass handed to him, only to suddenly be able to end it with a shot. My assumption was always that TM did not know he had the gun.

IMO, pulling your gun out of it's holster while laying down, is somewhat difficult to begin with. Not to mention that it is under clothes and a jacket. You then add someone on top of you, supposedly beating you, and it's going to be even more difficult. Knowing exactly the kind of gun and holster he had, it doesn't surprise me that he could get to it. But, IMO, it would have taken some time.

The holster GZ has doesn't use any kind of pinch retention system. It simply holds it in place. (I don't use those kinds for obvious reasons) For TM to get it out, it would require about the same amount of work and to get it into his hand and into a position to fire it, would have been difficult also.

I'll ask around to some of my LEO friends and see what their opinions are, and see if they have any videos they might offer.

 

[Cylinder]

What struck me from the reenactment is that Zimemrman has been through the close/contact drill since he commented and demonstrated placing his weak hand in front of his face to avoid shooting his off hand.

 

[WildCat]

Because the DNA reports appear to most laymen to be a difficult read (myself included) - I wanted to learn more about some terms used. For ex, the mention of "STR DNA analysis performed..." I wanted to know what STR was.

It lead me to this site (as well as a number of other, of course) - here:

http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/resources-and-faqs/

The evidence they are able to cull from the tiniest bit of human cells is amazing, and sometimes decades - hell centuries later...but little questions I wondered: like can DNA evidence prove someone grabbed a shirt, for example, just from their skin cells being on the material.

Right off, my question was answered.

Touch DNA

Is it possible to obtain a DNA profile from an item that an individual has touched or handled?




And there were case scenarios, such as this:


Case Scenario: The suspect grabbed onto a sweatshirt that the victim was wearing and the victim was able to wiggle out and get away. The sweatshirt was left behind. Could this be tested for touch DNA?




Fascinating, I tell ya.

You do realize that "can be tested" does not mean "DNA will be found", don't you?

 

[LTC8K6]

Hammered where? Not in court.

Or are you just playing the popular kids game of posting things you know aren't true, to up the thread count?

Crump would have been blowing a trumpet...at the head of a media parade...

 

[LTC8K6]

There is no straw man. You posted the exact words I quoted, so hiding behind that made up claim does nothing.

Dead body and shooter, equals evidence (not proof) that 'a crime has been committed', and that satisfies the capias requirements as spelled out in the law and in the court rulings posted here many times.

Your claim of 'no evidence' is patently false, and your attempt to drag in things that the defendant might use *later* in his defense, is irrelevant. That isn't the prosecution's duty at *that* stage of the game.

Shooting someone isn't necessarily evidence of commission of a crime. Lots of ordinary people shoot another ordinary person and aren't guilty of any crime. If the dead body was evidence of a crime, they could have arrested GZ right then for that crime.

 

[Unabogie]

I didn't read any of the new info. Anything of note, besides the voice stress test?

 

[Cylinder]

I didn't read any of the new info. Anything of note, besides the voice stress test?

Stress tests, Serino was demoted for leaking evidence, Serino kind of dismantled the state's ability to claim that Zimmerman used his firearm too quickly, etc..

 

[Cylinder]

If you guys follow @mattgutmanABC, he's spilling the beans on Serino as his SPD source. This can cause the state some troubles as well at trial. Gutman was the ABC source of the "non-injured" Zimmerman at the sally port.

YancyFaith ‏@YancyFaith
Was #Serino the leaker?! #TrayvonMartin #Zimmerman @mattgutmanABC ?
1:58 PM - 26 Jun 12 via Twitter for iPad · Details
1h Matt Gutman ‏@mattgutmanABC
@YancyFaith yes he was.
5:43 PM - 26 Jun 12 via web · Details

 

[This is The End]

If someone takes your 9mm out of your inside the waist band holster, and pulls the trigger from a few inches away, it is reasonable to believe that you are going to get hurt or killed.

If someone is on top of you punching you, and they move one hand down as if to take said 9mm, it is reasonable to believe that they are going to pull the trigger should they get it in their hand.

The prosecution, when all is said and done, is going to have to provide proof that not only the jury, but the judge and any possible appeals court will accept that this never happened.

They can't just just spin wild mind reading accusations about GZ's secret plot to commit murder, they must show actual proof... of a negative.

Unless they've got something up their sleeve, it is going to be hard to reach that standard inside the court room, where they can't use the sort of faked evidence that is flying all over the internet.

I'm not exactly saying this isn't true but it doesn't seem to be all there.

For instance, there would hardly ever be a murder conviction in the entire country ever again.

All the murderer would have to do is say the other person was going for the gun. And since it is impossible to dis-prove that specific moment of the crime, nearly all murders would be acquittals.

I'm quite sure if that was true, then word would have gotten around by now and everyone would be claiming that.

So surely other evidence can apply.

There must be something more to it than you are implying.

 

[Unabogie]

Stress tests, Serino was demoted for leaking evidence, Serino kind of dismantled the state's ability to claim that Zimmerman used his firearm too quickly, etc..

How so? I've just read a little. It seems like all the same stuff we know. George's version. His dubious injuries. The inconsistencies we all know about location and timeline.

How did Serino dismantle stuff?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm not exactly saying this isn't true but it doesn't seem to be all there.

For instance, there would hardly ever be a murder conviction in the entire country ever again.

All the murderer would have to do is say the other person was going for the gun. And since it is impossible to dis-prove that specific moment of the crime, nearly all murders would be acquittals.

I'm quite sure if that was true, then word would have gotten around by now and everyone would be claiming that.

So surely other evidence can apply.

There must be something more to it than you are implying.

Or there must be something more to it than you are implying? i.e. do you really think it's that easy to just shoot someone in cold blood, without the police suspecting you are a murderer, and without having your story fall apart if you are making it up and the evidence doesn't support you? Most crimes are heat of the passion and not well thought out. And in the event that they are planned, how many people do you think are going to think "gee, I've got the perfect plan, I'm going to murder them and claim self-defense"? No, it's 10x more likely they are going to murder them and stuff them in a suitcase or do a drive-by or whatever.

I don't think you're considering how most crimes actually take place.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not exactly saying this isn't true but it doesn't seem to be all there.

For instance, there would hardly ever be a murder conviction in the entire country ever again.

All the murderer would have to do is say the other person was going for the gun. And since it is impossible to dis-prove that specific moment of the crime, nearly all murders would be acquittals.

I'm quite sure if that was true, then word would have gotten around by now and everyone would be claiming that.

So surely other evidence can apply.

There must be something more to it than you are implying.

There is, which is the credibility of the person making the claim. I continue to believe that George will be convicted but I didn't always think so. I fully expected his story to be pretty mundane and hard to disprove. I thought it would be internally consistent. I think that IMO his story is so paper thin and he won't do well as a witness.

But there's where I think the law is on this. It has to be reasonable. You can claim self-defense no matter what the circumstances, but if the jury doesn't believe you, then it doesn't matter if you claim you were scared of that the other guy was beating you up.

It has to make sense to a jury.

That's why you don't see an epidemic of murderers getting off on self-defense claims.

But we'll see.

 

[This is The End]

Or there must be something more to it than you are implying? i.e. do you really think it's that easy to just shoot someone in cold blood, without the police suspecting you are a murderer, and without having your story fall apart if you are making it up and the evidence doesn't support you? Most crimes are heat of the passion and not well thought out. And in the event that they are planned, how many people do you think are going to think "gee, I've got the perfect plan, I'm going to murder them and claim self-defense"? No, it's 10x more likely they are going to murder them and stuff them in a suitcase or do a drive-by or whatever.

I don't think you're considering how most crimes actually take place.

Did you actually read the post I quoted and my response.

Because a reading of your response seems to make it quite clear that you didn't.

ETA: Unless, of course, you are agreeing with me, and that other evidence can apply. crim was specifically saying that no other evidence can apply. All that matters is that the prosecution cannot prove the specific event of: "they went for the gun". That is the claim being made.

ETA: NBS since you are here and you clearly want to discuss something, did you watch the video from post #484?

 

[This is The End]

So you pull a number of really bizarre claims to state these are classic CT tactics, and clamor repeatedly how this topic should be downgraded to junk status - when all who are reading can see how far you have to stretch to try and make your point, and many who are reading, I would bet, are genuinely insulted their participation falls in the genre of fringe, tin-hatted paranoids.

It is with hope you reconsider the obvious attempts to stifle - and that's what it is - but I don't see it happening

Not only that, but it is a 15,000 page thread! It's like a list is being kept of each time someone makes a crazy suggestion.

Note that nearly all of it is from the "M side" too. So assume whatever you want from that.

I think the few people convinced earlier today that perhaps M had blood on his hands and it either A) Washed off; or B) went completely unnoticed by all investigators, medical, and funeral personal is just as weird as some of the claims that person likes to keep listing.

As I said earlier, this is not a court room, there is nothing wrong with everyone bouncing any idea they can think of off the wall.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Do you not agree that grabbing your gun in that position would be very difficult?

Yes, it probably would be. And doing it would match all the evidence we have seen.

 

[Unabogie]

Not only that, but it is a 15,000 page thread! It's like a list is being kept of each time someone makes a crazy suggestion.

Note that nearly all of it is from the "M side" too. So assume whatever you want from that.

I think the few people convinced earlier today that perhaps M had blood on his hands and it either A) Washed off; or B) went completely unnoticed by all investigators, medical, and funeral personal is just as weird as some of the claims that person likes to keep listing.

As I said earlier, this is not a court room, there is nothing wrong with everyone bouncing any idea they can think of off the wall.

Well, that poster engages with just about everyone in that unproductive, aggressive way. I don't think he/she is at all interested in the case as much as just jousting with people. That can be fun, but it certainly doesn't lead any of us towards knowledge.

The signal/noise ratio in the thread can get pretty bad. That said, there are certainly posters here who are firmly on Team Zimmerman, but still manage to be polite and interesting.

So it can be done.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, it probably would be. And doing it would match all the evidence we have seen.

It would? How so?

By the way, did you notice in George's walkthrough he didn't get down on his knees, but instead crouched? Maybe that was just to keep his pants clean, but as Rare Truth noted, he seems to catch on when his story is veering off to neverland and adjusts himself accordingly.

But I'm curious, if his story is that he was straddled while grabbing the gun, how does that match the evidence of him actually managing this feat, when it would be obviously so much easier if Trayvon had backed off him before he reached down for it?

 

[This is The End]

Well, that poster engages with just about everyone in that unproductive, aggressive way.

Except, of course, when they see someone else deriding people for posting opinions.

Then it's a pat on the back and a bunch of smilies.

I don't believe anyone's ideas should be ridiculed, stifled, or completely shut down.

If someone posts something that is crazy or factually incorrect, just quote it, say it isn't right, and most importantly say what the correct facts are and/or what evidence shows. Or at the very least give your own contrasting opinion.

Just saying "that is wrong" or "that is CT" does more to show the persons intentions who says those things than it does to help the discussion.