Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

Curdog, do you live in Denton?

I think he lied about the struggle for the gun. And about the ;"You're gonna die tonite". I've said that from the git-go.

I doubt Martin ever saw the gun.

So... if he lied about how it ended, why should I believe him about how it started?

He fits the Wannabe Cop profile as well as Martin fits the Wannabe Gangsta profile.

No excuse Bob - but DID the prosecutor show front and back photos of Zimmerman? I asked you how you'd address this to a jury since a lack of grass and water stains (on a rainy night, if correct) might be interpreted as Z not being on the ground.

Frankly, I don't know what happened and I sincerely hope Z is found "Not Guilty".

The legal experts on TV are all over the place regarding the prosecution's closing arguments. I've seen a dozen or so comment today and there's a lot of varying opinions.

Their opinions on whether GZ is guilty of either charge is more consistent though. The majority believes that GZ is innocent although they have doubts about how the jury will rule.

I know it shouldn't be a direct comparison but how the public sees this trial seems to split along the same lines as politics.

Republican = GZ is innocent
Democrat = GZ is guilty

Therefore I say ... hung jury.

Witnesses saw TM on top of Z. Talk about grass and water stains all you want.

No excuse Bob - but DID the prosecutor show front and back photos of Zimmerman? I asked you how you'd address this to a jury since a lack of grass and water stains (on a rainy night, if correct) might be interpreted as Z not being on the ground.

Frankly, I don't know what happened and I sincerely hope Z is found "Not Guilty".

It's possible that TM felt the gun with his leg as he was straddling GZ. Maybe he thought it was cellphone and didn't realize the danger. Maybe the struggle was for the "cellphone". Maybe GZ was quick enough on the draw that TM never knew it was a gun.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. The only thing to go on is GZ's statements.

The police investigator testified that the back of Zimmerman's jacket and pants were wet along with grass on the jacket. Nothing was said about stains. Stains are not mandatory. Plus, the investigator testified that knees/shin area of Trayvon's pants were wet.

You also had the PA establish during the closing argument that Trayvon was on top when he mounted the mannequin. How much more do you want to overlook that Zimmerman was on his back?

Edited to add: Due to the picture and they type of material of the jacket it doesn't lend to being able to tell what parts are wet or not. I will take the investigator's word that they were wet since he could touch it.

Good grief, stop watching those idiots on TV and watch for yourself. People testified that they thought the "bigger" man was on top. That doesn't mean zimmerman, that just means that they thought the man on top as bigger than the one on the bottom. From several yards away in the dark TM could have easily looked bigger than Zimmerman who was on bottom and mostly covered up by Trayvon straddling him. The one witness who had an actual description of the man on top described TM and the closes he was wearing.

The police report said that TM had wet marks on his knees ONLY, and that GZ had wet marks on the back of his coat and pants ONLY. The defense has said a lot of things in this trial because they have no actual evidence, they are trying to mislead the jury into having doubt about self defense rather than proving without a reasonable doubt that GZ committed 2nd degree murder.

Good grief, stop watching those idiots on TV and watch for yourself. People testified that they thought the "bigger" man was on top. That doesn't mean zimmerman, that just means that they thought the man on top as bigger than the one on the bottom. From several yards away in the dark TM could have easily looked bigger than Zimmerman who was on bottom and mostly covered up by Trayvon straddling him. The one witness who had an actual description of the man on top described TM and the closes he was wearing.

The police report said that TM had wet marks on his knees ONLY, and that GZ had wet marks on the back of his coat and pants ONLY. The Defense[b][/b] has said a lot of things in this trial because they have no actual evidence, they are trying to mislead the jury into having doubt about self defense rather than proving without a reasonable doubt that GZ committed 2nd degree murder.

I also doubt that Martin ever actually SAW the gun; it was dark and rainy and the gun was concealed in an ISW holster behind Zimmerman 's hip. However, as they struggled on the ground, Martin could have touched the gun while wrestling with Zimmerman and this led Zimmerman to conclude hat Martin was going for it. Fearing for his life, Zimmerman could have pulled it and fired.

Non-lawyer opinion as to why no objections ...

The prosecution wasn't proving anything. Why interrupt and risk the negatives when there's no real need to do it?