Zimmerman/Martin case

[DaveS]

There is more at the bottom of this page...

http://news.yahoo.com/tests-only-identify-zimmermans-dna-handgun-145033119.html

Dave

[gjohnsoniv]

I was wondering when this would make the news again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe I'm being too insensitive, but, I don't really care, unless some expert can explain how this is necessary.

[DaveS]

Maybe I'm being too insensitive, but, I don't really care, unless some expert can explain how this is necessary.

Kinda the way I feel too. What difference would it make? Other than if the kid tried to grab Z-man's gun.

Dave S

[TMF]

Kinda the way I feel too. What difference would it make? Other than if the kid tried to grab Z-man's gun.

Dave S

It doesn't prove anything, but it will restrict the defense from using the argument that Martin was trying to get Z's pistol. The defense could still argue it, but the prosecution could effectively neutralize it as far as the jury would be concerned.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Have they been saying that? I remember that used in one of the arguments. Couldv'e been me, but how would that

restrict a lawyer from using it? Trying to go after and successfully attaining the weapon are different animals.

It certainly does nothing to convict.

[jtmaze]

Just thinking that the defense should run DNA on the shirt around the area where the gun was. If concealed, that is where the DNA would show up most. Not an attorney, but if you went after my gun while concealed under shirt I would used right hand to retain gun in holster and left hand to fend up off. You would probably(I hope) would never actually get your hands on my gun.

JTM

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveS]

I've heard people argue it, but to the best of my memory, I've never heard anything official.

Dave S

[Guest HvyMtl]

Simply put, we do not know the facts, not until the trail. And even then, we will not know all the facts.

I have read the defense is NOT using the "Stand your ground" law as a defense in court. They are using simple self defense. All that media sound and fury over a law, that even the defence attorneys believe, does not apply...

[E4 No More]

"Zimmerman says Martin had been on top of him, slamming his head against the ground and smothering his mouth and nose with his hand and arm when he grabbed his gun from a holster on his waist

before Martin could get it

."

I don't even know why this is reported since the absence of DNA substatiates what Zimmerman stated to have happened.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Zimmerman says Martin had been on top of him, slamming his head against the ground and smothering his mouth and nose with his hand and arm when he grabbed his gun from a holster on his waist

before Martin could get it

."

I don't even know why this is reported since the absence of DNA substatiates what Zimmerman stated to have happened.

Probably because it's about time to stir the pot and make sure all those chickens come home to roost.

Simply put, we do not know the facts, not until the trail. And even then, we will not know all the facts.

I have read the defense is NOT using the "Stand your ground" law as a defense in court. They are using simple self defense. All that media sound and fury over a law, that even the defence attorneys believe, does not apply...

But it sounded evil, like a black rifle

[TMF]

Have they been saying that? I remember that used in one of the arguments. Couldv'e been me, but how would that

restrict a lawyer from using it? Trying to go after and successfully attaining the weapon are different animals.

It certainly does nothing to convict.

I haven't been following news on it so I don't know what the defense is up to, but the prosecution did this for a reason. Since the lack of DNA doesn't prove anything it is safe to assume the purpose here was to use the information to debunk an argument made by the defense or at least prevent them from even wanting to use it. These trials are all about small victories to shape the perception of the juror. Without this evidence the defense could argue that Martin was grabbing Z's gun. The onus is not on the defense to prove that true, it is on the prosecution to prove it isn't. The Casey Anthony trial shows all that. The defense can come out with whatever wild story they want. If the prosecution hasn't done their homework to counter and disprove those assertions, the jury has no choice but to have reasonable doubt. So, really this isn't news. Just another day in the lives of lawyers doing what they get paid to do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Kind of what I meant, TMF. Tactics. I doubt it will matter one way or the other.

Last I heard was the defense was going for self defense, which is arguable.

[Sam1]

Is Zimmerman expected to let someone take possession of his weapon, then politely ask for it back before defending himself? Maybe there was no blood on it because he had his hand covering the darn thing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's why it isn't much of an issue.

[Jonnin]

It doesn't prove anything, but it will restrict the defense from using the argument that Martin was trying to get Z's pistol. The defense could still argue it, but the prosecution could effectively neutralize it as far as the jury would be concerned.

The offical press story has said several times that TM was beating GZ's head when GZ pulled and shot with zero press stating that TM went for the gun. TM probably was not even aware of the gun.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And we all know how the "official "press story got reported. Tripping over themselves to skew this and that, media, that is.

[Links2k]

Guys, can't we just go back and read the other 7000 page thread? Just kidding! For some crazy reason I was thinking about his case the other day and found myself hoping that it would be resolved around the week of the election and quietly go away.

[DaveS]

Guys, can't we just go back and read the other 7000 page thread? Just kidding! For some crazy reason I was thinking about his case the other day and found myself hoping that it would be resolved around the week of the election and quietly go away.

I don't think it's suppose to go to court until next year sometime.

Dave S