Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[FBM]

Continued from: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1166561

[Faithfree]

Can I change the topic?

[FBM]

Can I change the topic?

Do you think it would actually help?

[Faithfree]

Can I change the topic?

Do you think it would actually help?

No

[Coito ergo sum]

We'll see whether the cops withheld evidence from the prosecutor's office. Apparently, suggesting that the cops handed over photos they had of the bleeding skull of Zimmerman to the prosecutors is too big of an "if" for some people to contemplate.

Take it from the top - the cops let Zimmerman go unjustifiably, because they had no good reason to think he really defended himself that night. Oh, wait, we have photo clearly showing Zimmerman's bleeding skull. Cops have been called racists and skewered in the media for their unjustified behavior in not arresting Zimmerman. So, clearly, they would have every incentive not to turn over evidence with tends to justify their decision. They'd not want the prosecutor to see part of the reason why they didn't make the arrest that night. Makes perfect sense.

[FBM]

Can I change the topic?

Do you think it would actually help?

No

Neither do I.

[mistermack]

As far as the photo goes, it's hardly the withholding of vital evidence, and it's not clear that the photo can be trusted. The chain of evidence isn't clear.
The police reports state that Zimmerman was bleeding from the head and nose. The prosecution are hardly likely to dispute police statements. There OUGHT to be plenty of available evidence, that hasn't been released to the public.
There should have been proper still photos, take in the police station, of any injuries. His clothes should have been retained for evidence.

That professor is clearly trying to line up another book deal, by trying to get involved. It's a lucrative industry in the States.

I would imagine that the police prosecution will argue that carrying a gun doesn't entitle you to kill someone, if you cause a fight, and get the worst of it. A gun licence isn't a licence to kill.

Zimmerman's cuts. if any, were minor. He needed no stitches. His "broken nose" was minor. And there is no proof how he got them.
Jump on someone, and you might easily cut your head on the pavement, and they might well punch you on the nose.

It's basically a publicity-hungry wanker, trying to get involved for the money.

[FBM]

Indeed. His injuries might have come from this, they might have come from that. I could easily come up with half a dozen reasonably possible scenarios in a fairly short time. Just let me know who you want to be guilty and I'll craft them towards that end. This gets right towards what was mentioned a bit earlier (in the other thread) about "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not sure how that's going to be achieved in this case.

[Coito ergo sum]

As far as the photo goes, it's hardly the withholding of vital evidence,

It is vital evidence, since it tends to support his defense. It's exculpatory evidence, and the police and the prosecutors both have a legal obligation to not withhold ANY exculpatory evidence, vital or otherwise.

and it's not clear that the photo can be trusted. The chain of evidence isn't clear.

To you, maybe. But, that doesn't mean it isn't still exculpatory evidence.

The police reports state that Zimmerman was bleeding from the head and nose. The prosecution are hardly likely to dispute police statements. There OUGHT to be plenty of available evidence, that hasn't been released to the public.

Yes, but as Dershowitz explained, the prosecution swearing out a warrant have to present the whole truth. Read Dershowitz's article previously linked.

There should have been proper still photos, take in the police station, of any injuries. His clothes should have been retained for evidence.

The still photos at the police station were taken, but that would be after the head was cleaned up, by the EMT staff responding to the scene. The clothes were retained for evidence.

That professor is clearly trying to line up another book deal, by trying to get involved. It's a lucrative industry in the States.

Naturally, always an ulterior motive, when it's not something that helps you, right?

He's not just a Harvard Professor, like the President. He's an accomplished criminal defense lawyer.

I would imagine that the police prosecution will argue that carrying a gun doesn't entitle you to kill someone, if you cause a fight, and get the worst of it. A gun licence isn't a licence to kill.

Has anyone alleged he caused the fight?

Zimmerman's cuts. if any, were minor. He needed no stitches. His "broken nose" was minor. And there is no proof how he got them.
Jump on someone, and you might easily cut your head on the pavement, and they might well punch you on the nose.

Sure, but that still doesn't explain why the prosecution would create a selective warrant.

It's basically a publicity-hungry wanker, trying to get involved for the money.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing if he was voicing opposition to Zimmerman.

Like, the wanker representing the Martin family. I've just gone over the bevy of posts in which you scorn him and his motives for painting a distorted picture. Oh, wait, you didn't...because that lawyer's story can be trusted, since it supports your position.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed. His injuries might have come from this, they might have come from that. I could easily come up with half a dozen reasonably possible scenarios in a fairly short time. Just let me know who you want to be guilty and I'll craft them towards that end. This gets right towards what was mentioned a bit earlier (in the other thread) about "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not sure how that's going to be achieved in this case.

Ballistics and forensics.

If Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on his back and Martin was on top of him, then the bullet wound would be like X and the entry wound would be at Y angle, etc. Powder residue would be on Martin in a certain way, etc. Blood would spatter in a certain way.

If Zimmerman gunned him down while they were both standing, or while Zimmerman was beating him and Martin was the one screaming for help, etc., as has been alleged, the forensic analysis will show different wound patterns and blood spatters. And, Martin would have fallen differently.

[FBM]

True, but this wouldn't shed light on who initiated the physical contact or whether or not it was racially motivated.

[kiki5711]

Ballistics and forensics.

If Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on his back and Martin was on top of him, then the bullet wound would be like X and the entry wound would be at Y angle, etc. Powder residue would be on Martin in a certain way, etc. Blood would spatter in a certain way.

If Zimmerman gunned him down while they were both standing, or while Zimmerman was beating him and Martin was the one screaming for help, etc., as has been alleged, the forensic analysis will show different wound patterns and blood spatters. And, Martin would have fallen differently.

THere you go again with your "IFs" this and "IFs" that.

We don't know what ballistics or forensics evidence they have, so let's see the proof in the puding when the trial starts.

[kiki5711]

True, but this wouldn't shed light on who initiated the physical contact or whether or not it was racially motivated.

I honestly don't think it was racially motivated as in "zimmerman hatin on blacks", but had a habit as do many people just to assume the worst as soon as they see someone "apparently" suspicious being "black".

[mistermack]

This prosecution will rest on whether Zimmerman was REALLY in fear of his life, not on who jumped who.

And whether that fear was REASONABLE.

If you go out with a gun in your pants, the paranoia in your head doesn't give you licence to kill.

[Coito ergo sum]

True, but this wouldn't shed light on who initiated the physical contact or whether or not it was racially motivated.

Racial motivation is not at issue in this prosecution. It doesn't matter.

Who initiated physical contact can matter, although I don't think the prosecution has even alleged the Zimmerman initiated anything. I'm not positive, but I don't think they have.

Where the forensics may come in is to show Zimmerman is lying. If his defense is that Martin knocked him down and banged his head in the ground, and he shot Martin from that position, but the forensics clearly shows that couldn't be the case, then Zimmerman may be toast. I would be inclined to find no reasonable doubt and to vote to convict, if Zimmerman shot the guy while the two were standing, Martin unarmed, and they were apart. Or, if Zimmerman was beating up Martin, as some have alleged, and shot him from a superior position.

If it all lines up to support Zimmerman's story, however, then I'd be inclined to find reasonable doubt.

I haven't so far seen any evidence of Zimmerman starting a fight. Nothing. I have heard it alleged that he must have, but that's mostly a false reading of the 911 transcript. I have heard many laypeople say that Zimmerman shouldn't have "followed" Martin, but that is not correct. Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.