Even if there are 'inconsistencies', they are not nearly enough to convict a man. For every 'slam dunk' the prosecution has, there is an equally plausible scenario for the defense that cannot be dis proven. Sure, everyone can say what 'could' have happened, but the justice system works on facts, not conjecture and this case, the facts aren't enough to convict a man of manslaughter or murder. I can't believe he called the police and said, 'Hey, get some officers over here quick, I'm about to murder this kid!'
Sorry, stopped reading here... Prosecutors admit Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend lied under oath In addition, the lead prosecution investigator Dale Gilbreath testified under oath during the bond hearing they had found no evidence to dispute George Zimmerman’s account of how the confrontation with Trayvon Martin started. O’Mara – “Do you know who started the fight?” Gilbreath – “Do I know? No” O’Mara – “Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?” Gilbreath – “No.” O’Mara – “Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, any witnesses, any statements, anything that would contradict Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion? Gilbreath – Err, no. Well, do I know who punched first? No. There is no evidence at all that refutes Zimmermans assertions. ...and thats from the prosecution. Drop the charges, and pay him for his legal bills, then he can sue NBC and go hide somewhere rich and fat. Case closed.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, as well it should be. I agree that inconsistencies, if they exist, aren't enough to convict. The state has a high burden to meet. The can't simply put forth what could have happened, or even what is likely to have happened. Even if the jury thinks it is more likely than not that Zimmerman is guilty, that's insufficient for a criminal conviction. The problem with the case so far is that there is still so much uncertainty around the events of that night. If the State can't resolve that uncertainty and bring in some proof (as opposed to might-haves or conjecture) then under our system the jury should acquit.
This is not true. The brain can continue to remain conscious for a few seconds after losing blood flow. While the loss of consciousness is rapid, it is by no means immediate. Do some research into how long people continue to live after their head is cut off by a guillotine. The record is surprisingly high.
Seconds? Did you look at Zimmerman's claims, he supposedly talked for minutes. As for living after beheading, goodness what have you been reading? Muscles twitch, you can't stay conscious. I have a masters as a nurse practitioner and more than two decades of experience, you lose consciousness within seconds of losing your heart pump. It's physics. "You got me," sounds like something out of a bad movie. "Stay down," cop wannabe talk consistent with making a story up. All you have is an opinion of a black kid out to get 'honkey'. Look at the evidence: That didn't happen. Zimmerman's account doesn't fit the evidence. I understand JJ claiming it doesn't meet his "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. Zimmerman's words say otherwise, in my opinion.
This confirms what I said. I'm wondering why you posted something that you knew was false. Whether or not this was said and whether or not it sounds like it came from a bad movie is not relevant to reasonable doubt. Nothing you have posted is incriminating. It's nothing but opinion. Actually, you're the only one that has played the race card here. While I'm not as familiar with the case as I'd like to be, what others have been saying contradicts your statement. He walked the police through the seen. Testimony from both eyewitnesses and those directly involved with such cases is often shoddy and there are always some contradictions. Ask any investigator and they'll tell you that if they get a perfect story, they are instantly suspicious. Perfect consistency is a major warning sign. And if you were on the jury, your use of the race card and your use of contradictions as evidence of guilt (which they aren't) would be cause for removal.
Immediate death by gunshot wound to the heart sure does make studies like this seem like boring fiction. http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/3/208.pdf
What are you talking about? As for the sounding like a movie, there was a point to my comment. A made up a story is consistent with giving a movie version. And I did play the race card, I highlighted archerfenris' words. Death and consciousness are two different things.
The difference here is, when one starts an altercation, you now have a higher standard to prove you exhausted all means of getting away. There is evidence Zimmerman started the altercation, even if Martin punched him and was on top. Why would Zimmerman need to lie about the circumstances if they truly happened as he said, and why doesn't the physical evidence match Zimmerman's story?
You stated in a previous post that a gunshot to the heart causes instant unconsciousness. I quoted you once already. You admit that as a nurse practitioner, you know that it won't cause instant unconsciousness. Why the contradictions? What are you hiding? You must be guilty of something! (The exact argument you have made against Zimmerman.) Just like books, movies will take things from real life experiences. Just like books, real life and fiction will overlap in a movie. Your argument here is beyond ridiculous and again does not do anything to eliminate reasonable doubt. Did you mean to say that you didn't play the race card? You absolutely did. archerfenris was merely (correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, archerfenris) disparaging what seems to be the primary argument of all those that want Zimmerman behind bars; their arguments are based entirely on race and racism.
Not sure what you are missing, but you are missing something. You should re-read the posts you think say something they don't. I did say nicking the heart was different from a bullet that goes through the right atrium. I also said losing consciousness is not the same as dying. If a person is treated soon enough, one can survive a bullet through the heart. But when you put a hole in a major chest vessel, the blood is going to follow the path of least resistance. You can't get a more major vessel than the heart itself. In the case of the right atrium, besides bleeding out, the sinus node is located there so there's a good chance the heart started fibrillating. The blood would go out the hole and not through the heart valve to the right ventricle. There's a lot of pressure that right ventricle is pumping against. It has to push the blood through the capillaries in the lung before the blood returns to the left atrium to the left ventricle to the body. A hole in the right atrium from a through and through bullet will result in the blood going out the hole. It's a fact of physics and hydrostatic pressure. The heart would stop pumping blood almost instantly. Blood would not fill the pump, the pump would have no blood fill to pump out. Blood flow stops going to the brain pretty quickly. Have you ever stood up too fast and started to or did black out? The brain cannot stay conscious with only reserve O[SUB]2[/SUB]. It needs constant resupply. Martin could not have talked to Zimmerman the way Zimmerman describes, ergo he made parts of his story up. I'm sorry but I'm really not following you here. Are you saying racism against Martin means people see Zimmerman as guilty? You need to re-read that post as well. Archerfenris suggested I had it in for Zimmerman and in archerfenris' opinion a black teen attacked "a honkey".
The fact that there is evidence still doesn't mean you reach reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did started the altercation, if that's what you want to rely on. Until the prosecution meets its burden, a criminal defendant doesn't have to prove anything or even put on any evidence. I haven't see anything constituting proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who started it.
I think it is more likely that I'm reading exactly what you're saying, but you don't like the implications of my conclusions. One of those implications being that you may be subtly racist. None of this contradicts anything I've said. I know what it feels like to go unconscious from lack of blood flow to the brain. I also know it takes at least several seconds, just long enough to say something consciously, or even long enough for the subconscious to take over. A bullet to the heart will not cause a victim to become instantly unconscious, something you have already admitted. I pointed out what I believed him to be doing. Maybe I misinterpreted your intention here, but your conclusions against Zimmerman are absolutely horrendous and you would be thrown off a jury. Almost everything Zimmerman said could be a lie and there would still not be enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt. You have completely let your personal bias influence your judgement of Zimmerman, just like so many others.
I get that part. I seem to think Zimmerman's own words are what demonstrates he's lying beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence I specifically cited, Zimmerman played up the threat he felt, played up the head injuries, and lied about the fact he was still following Martin. I don't find simple errors in memory explain those details. Trial's not over, of course.
I can't follow your line of thinking, jmhoffer. If you're arguing over 'instant' vs 'within seconds', it's not relevant. Martin, with that injury, could not have talked the way Zimmerman described. I honestly don't get your point. As for the racism accusation, I think people are stereotyping Martin and using that in lieu of the evidence, as if being a black teen is evidence of attacking Zimmerman. Beyond that, again, I honestly cannot follow your reasoning. JJ seems to think Martin's friend telling her dead friend's mother a lie to save from having to tell her directly why she wasn't going to Martin's memorial somehow impeaches all her testimony as a liar. I find his conclusion potentially due to racism, but I can't say for sure racism is involved. From JJ's link: How insensitive to a kid in emotional pain can you be? To garner sympathy? Are you kidding? She was having a hard time emotionally facing Martin's parents. I almost think whomever wrote that hardly heard a word she said.
That's not much to hang reasonable doubt on. It's a very high standard for a reason. You might meet a civil trial burden with it, but not a criminal one, in my view. The prosecution better hope it has more to go on that that, because I don't think that's a reasonable basis for a criminal conviction. It wouldn't astound me in the least if Zimmerman were guilty, but the State still has to prove it under our system. Progressives should be the most vigilant in ensuring that the high burden of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is met in each and every criminal case. Ironically, 9 times out of 10 the progressive are exactly the ones who would hold the prosecution to that high standard of proof. The exceptions come in cases where politics and media attention come in and cast a case in a certain light, and then you'll see progressive suddenly look like conservatives with their 'kill them all and let god sort them out' attitude. It's too bad. In reality, we should make darn sure the State meets its burden each and every time, and if not then the accused is acquitted. It's better to let a few guilty people go than start throwing more innocent people in jail because we decide 'reasonable doubt' is suddenly very easy to get past. People have been convicted wrongfully on more evidence than I've seen against Zimmerman in this case, and whether we like the outcome or not that shouldn't happen here or in other cases. Personally, my sympathies tend to remain with Martin in this case, for a variety of reasons, but if I were on that jury I don't know how I could vote to convict, especially not on 2nd degree murder. At least not so far. We'll see what the rest of the trial brings.
How do you rationalize or explain Zimmerman's lies? Just curious how your thinking differs from mine.
If you don't get it, I don't know what's wrong with you. Seconds are absolutely relevant. If someone puts you in a blood choke (also known as a 'sleeper hold') and cuts off blood flow to your brain (which this does instantaneously), half a second can be the difference between life and death. When my instructor put me in a blood choke, I could speak for about 5 seconds before losing consciousness, easily long enough to say, 'You got me!' And I think you - and the people that are so publicly against Zimmerman despite the total lack of evidence (the man even cooperated with the police) - are using a mix of white guilt and anti-white racism to justify your absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic conclusions. A few contradictions in Zimmerman's story (despite that other people have shown that his story did not have anywhere near the number of contradictions that you claim it has) do not come anywhere near 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The 911 call and the walk through of the scene both support Zimmerman's version of events. In order to conclude Zimmerman is guilty, you must have some sort of bias colouring your conclusion.
The officer on the stand today told the court that almost all witnesses have inconsistencies in their stories. GingerCoffee, you asked if I would physically attack a person for following me. I am asking if you could be able to tell the same exact story about a high adrenaline situation that occurred in pitch black (a term the prosecution did not object to) immediately after, hours later, and the day following? Zimmerman's stories have not had any major inconsistencies that lead police to think his story is a fabrication. It has been illustrated that having no inconsistencies is the sign of a well rehearsed lie. And remember girls and boys, "creepy-ass cracker" is not racist. Use it in the grocery store, on the bus, on the playground.
The most amazing part of this case- How much people care about it, v the other thousands of murders that never get any attention. We have a very warped decision making process for what trials "matter" and "don't matter", something that should be considered.
This just in, apparently CNN broadcasted Zimmerman's Social Security number, phone number and home address as well as date of birth. CNN Broadcasts Zimmerman Social Security Number Seems like the entire media machine has already found Zimmerman guilty and are doing everything they can do to falsely convict him outside of the justice system.
[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION] - that's a big problem with this case and other high-profile cases. Everyone did make up their mind the minute it went viral, and haven't budged from it since. On both sides, the whole thing since then has been emphasizing or de-emphasizing evidence depending on who it appears to help. [MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION] I'm not offering any explanation for Zimmerman's statements. Assuming he's lying (which is something the jury will have to decide), you can't convict someone of murder or manslaughter if all you can prove is that they're lying. I don't think we want to get to the point in our system where if you can be shown to have lied, you get convicted of the underlying charge. People lie to the police all the time. Sometimes to cover up their crime, sometimes for other reasons that seem good to them at the time, sometimes for completely ridiculous reasons that make no sense. Think of a case where a guy is in a neighborhood where a crime takes place, and he resembles the description from a witness, so the police talk to him. He lies and says he was never there. Turns out, he's married and he was at his girlfriend's house. Suppose that never came to light in the trial - should the lie, hanging out there unexplained, be enough to convict? In many neighborhoods in the country, people don't really trust the police and lie to them a lot for that reason. Are those people we're going to convict of crimes because we can later showed they lied about something? No...Zimmerman isn't being charged with lying. If he were, that's what the State would have to prove. He's being charged with murder 2, or possibly manslaughter if the jury goes that way. That's what the State has to prove. Proving he lied does not prove murder. As an aside, Zimmerman was stupid to even open his mouth to the police. Whether he committed murder or not, the smartest thing he could have done (or that any person can do when the police come to them in a criminal situation) was keep his mouth shut. If he'd done that, the prosecution wouldn't even have lies to work with. And if you think about it, that says a lot. Even if you assume Zimmerman is lying, if you take away the lies there is very little evidence to sustain a conviction. Maybe more will come to light as the thing goes on, but I think any person should be disturbed if we convict any person of a crime like murder or manslaughter based on this level of evidence.
If the lying can be explained using the prosecutor's scenario and the defense description of events (aka GZ's) is not supported by the facts then you have more than just evidence of lying.
