Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[chero23]

Okay, this was not a hate crime ! Zimmerman obviously stereotyped this young man and now Trayvon is dead because he wore a hoodie on his head. Lord have mercy on us all.

Very sad for all concerned. Let us pray.

The hoodie is one thing, but you have to remember that Trayvon was not an academic, or a scholar, or some kid who was out helping the community. I mean the kid had gotten suspended from school for fighting, he even posted on FB that he wanted a gun. I mean that’s not inncent, not for a 17 yr old

 

[styrgwillidar]

And 4 minutes where the only narrative we have is Zimmerman’s word, the word of one man and one could be the most honorary citizen in the world but it is still one man’s word.

You mention Martin straddling Zimmerman, this is true, it’s also true that Martin was much stronger and fitter than Zimmerman, in a physical battle, Martin would be the favorite.

And then, other evidence, no blood on Martin’s hands, now if he breaks Zimmerman’s nose, now we are at the wild theory of all the blood going down internally and none externally, thus all we know is there was not enough to convict Zimmerman.

And again, the lack of injuries to Martin are not evidence that he was the aggressor, or wasn’t attacked. As BroomWagon pointed out, Martin being better at fighting and effective at defending himself wouldn’t be criminal. He wouldn’t have been obligated to suffer injury prior to defending himself.

 

[SamH]

Okay, this was not a hate crime ! Zimmerman obviously stereotyped this young man and now Trayvon is dead because he wore a hoodie on his head. Lord have mercy on us all.

Very sad for all concerned. Let us pray.

I think it had more to do with Martin beating Zimmerman’s face in than the hoodie.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…And then, other evidence, no blood on Martin’s hands, now if he breaks Zimmerman’s nose, now we are at the wild theory of all the blood going down internally and none externally, thus all we know is there was not enough to convict Zimmerman.

While he was on his back, his blood probably did go down his throat and remain internal. When he stood up, it probably flowed out of his nose. With that being said, I do not have an explanation for why there was not a trace of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s hand.

 

[MaryT777]

I’m not debating this with you anymore. You are arguing feelings, I’m arguing law. It’s legal. Period.

Yes it is legal. Period.
What can disagree if it Should be done but it Can be done.

 

[Tucker_R]

Ya but see… anti gun ppl won’t use logic… or the actual facts… its just a GGUUUUNNNN! Yeesh. Z acted legally tm didn’t.

We already went over this and it is basic common sense that Zimmerman did not first pull his weapon. It is not at all plausible. When someone carries, one is prepared to use one’s weapon when one pulls it. If Zimmerman had pulled his weapon prior to being assaulted, the assault would not have happened and Zimmerman would not have had a mark on him.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Source of the “no blood” claim?

Autopsy report, I think. I’ll look for a link to verify.

 

[Tucker_R]

She is well… not… nice. I won’t post the link here… too much hatred comming from her.

Additional note, I’m reading the news, I can’t believe what Nancy Grace says and furthermore, what she said was eventually refuted as to Zimmerman possibly using a racial slur, if not totally refuted, called into doubt.

 

[SamH]

Autopsy report. I’ll look for a link.

I hadn’t heard that, but then I didn’t watch much of the trial. How did they (prosecutor, defense, medical examiner) reconcile that with the abrasions on his hands?

 

[styrgwillidar]

We already went over this and it is basic common sense that Zimmerman did not first pull his weapon. It is not at all plausible. When someone carries, one is prepared to use one’s weapon when one pulls it. If Zimmerman had pulled his weapon prior to being assaulted, the assault would not have happened and Zimmerman would not have had a mark on him.

I would also think that Martin was bright enough that if he was defending himself from someone with a gun, his objective would have been to get control of the weapon, and failing that eliminate it from either’s control. So, in the straddling position he wouldn’t have been raining blows down with both hands as the witnesses testified.

Also, Zimmerman pulling the weapon prior to being in imminent danger of serious bodily harm would have been criminal and could get him charged with — assault, brandishing a weapon, intimidation, unlawful detention/kidnapping etc.

 

[Tucker_R]

Yup… and give thier knives ( all of them ) bats, hammers, wrenches etc.

Did you know that automobiles kill more people than guns do? So are you willing to give up your car?

 

[BroomWagon]

Autopsy report, I think. I’ll look for a link to verify.

i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

Or perhaps 'no blood under fingernails" or “no blood of Zimmerman”, obviously, there would be blood for the gunshot wound.

 

[maryjk]

While he was on his back, his blood probably did go down his throat and remain internal. When he stood up, it probably flowed out of his nose. With that being said, I do not have an explanation for why there was not a trace of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s hand.

It could be that because people don’t bleed instantaneously. Think about when you cut yourself with a knife. Very rarely do I end up with blood on the knife.

 

[MaryT777]

I think the above comments are uncalled for. As someone who lives in a fairly dangerous neighborhood that has a “watch” I do have my own opinions on Zimmerman’s actions. That doesn’t make me an “armchair leftest” nor does it mean that I somehow lack understanding (anymore so than anyone else on this board).

We don’t know what began the altercation. My first month in the parish I’m currently in, 4 people were murdered in my neighborhood. Illegal guns abound. If I saw a suspicious person I would immediately contact the police, but would never follow them for any length of time nor get out of my car at any point. That’s essentially the advice of the police.

Yes, it’s best to take the advice of the police otherwise why have them if we can all try to follow and detain suspects.

 

[Tucker_R]

No kidding… the pic of Z right after the incident definetly shows blood.

Source of the “no blood” claim?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Autopsy report, I think. I’ll look for a link to verify.

I can’t find any mention of DNA in the autopsy report, though I may have overlooked it quickly skimming. But, I did find this.

No Zimmerman DNA under Martin’s fingernails: Expert witness
Source link: foxnews.com/us/2013/07/03/zimmerman-school-records-at-issue-in-wednesday-hearing/

 

[SamH]

Yes, it’s best to take the advice of the police otherwise why have them if we can all try to follow and detain suspects.

Who detained who?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Yes, it’s best to take the advice of the police otherwise why have them if we can all try to follow and detain suspects.

MaryT777, I understand that you and I disagree on whether Zimmerman actually stopped following Martin when he said he did to the dispatcher.

However, where is there evidence to indicate he ever tried to detain anyone, and specifically in this case Martin?

 

[SamH]

No Zimmerman DNA under Martin’s fingernails: Expert witness
Source link: foxnews.com/us/2013/07/03/zimmerman-school-records-at-issue-in-wednesday-hearing/

That I knew and I believe that was also expected.

 

[styrgwillidar]

That I knew and I believe that was also expected.

Something I never saw followed up on in the trial-

The defense asked the ME if/who had clipped Martin’s fingernails in the autopsy and the ME said he didn’t know whether that had ever been done. It didn’t seem the defense got to their point, or I missed it, were Martins fingernails short and less likely to have anything under them?