17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

[joypath]

Maybe someone can answer this...I'm watching Investigation Discovery, and this piqued my interest.

If the bullet exited Trayvon's body, does that mean he was standing up? In other words, if he were laying on his back, would the bullet exit or not?

BBM
IMO, Can't be answered in a "yes" or "no" response as the TYPE of wound and trajectory are extremely important, as is the weapon used!. While this website is crated by a defense atty, it does present the basic information from Vincent J.M. Di Maio, M.D.'s textbook (aka a forensic pathology "bible"). http://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/

IMO

:banghead: Oh yeah, there's a statement about "blood escape" that is a GENERALITY, NOT "Gospel" and NOT an "absolute"! :banghead:

again, IMO, JME

 

[jaded cat]

Well, we can disagree on that all we want, that's not how the law is written. It's not illegal to approach someone who you find suspicious and ask them what they're doing.

Unless you are in LE, it's not very bright. Perhaps the better approach might have been to ask TM if he needed some help. Since, IMO, GZ got out of his truck with a chip on his shoulder, I wouldn't doubt TM felt intimidated or fearful.

 

[Karmady]

This is precisely what I see and keep saying. IMO, if Trayvon hit GZ, then TM simply invoked his SYG right. He was just gunless and failed.

Given the circumstances, TM had more of a reason to use SYG than GZ did. He felt in danger, based on what he allegedly told his girlfriend.

GZ never told 911 that he felt endangered or terrorized or fearful. Just the opposite: he began premeditating not to let the "*advertiser censored**hole get away."

My impression is that it's the State's job to stand up for the victim. Hopefully, AC & Prosecution Team will be effecting in showing that, if a fight ensued -- again: IF -- that is was simply TM using his SYG right. Which GZ forced him into needing.

SYG is a statute providing immunity from arrest and prosecution. Since TM was not arrested or charged, there is absolutely no basis to apply the law to him. The family's remedy is a civil wrongful death (etc.) suit against GZ and/or the HOA and the State's remedy is the current charges against GZ.
jmoo

 

[jaded cat]

Sorry to bump my own post, but in addition:

IMO JO several times brings up George drinking or not drinking out of the blue.
Hmm.:waitasec:

OMG! O'Mara needs to put a muzzle on everyone GZ knows. They are not helping GZ in the least and, while not relevant to his trial, they need to stay off the damn TV shows.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

LOL. You must have watched the Lawrence O'Donnell/Charles Blow interview? I've said it 100 times but I just have to say again, that's some of the best TV ever!!


~jmo~

Yeppers. And again--WOW! :what:

 

[IzzyBlanche]

SYG is a statute providing immunity from arrest and prosecution. Since TM was not arrested or charged, there is absolutely no basis to apply the law to him. The family's remedy is a civil wrongful death (etc.) suit against GZ and/or the HOA and the State's remedy is the current charges against GZ.
jmoo

He wasn't arrested or charged because he was dead. IMO that doesn't mean he waived his right to stand his ground against a perceived threat before he died.

 

[jaded cat]

You and I view this stream of events differently.

Would you say that a child running into the street caused their death, or would you say being hit by a car caused their death.

That's the analogy here.

I'd say the child running into the street didn't cause the death. It was being run over by the car that caused it.

Similarly, GZ believing Trayvon was acting suspiciously didn't cause Trayvon's death. GZ following Trayvon didn't cause his death.

The physical altercation (that no one impartial knows who started) caused the death. IMHO as always.

If he had stayed in his truck and waited for the police, who were already on their way, TM would still be alive. GZ following TM most certainly caused the death of TM, because GZ shot him. The details, facts and forensics will provide a much better outline of what actually happened. Right now, none of us know the truth.

If the child hadn't run into the street, the car wouldn't have hit the child. Cause - Effect. The damage done by the car killed the child but the parents didn't put the child out in the street, hoping a car would hit him.

 

[i.b.nora]

Mr. Hornsbys praise of Joe Oliver told me ... a lot.

I keep wondering when someone will be asking Kim Kardashian to comment on the case.

 

[mdana]

Wow.

I just watched this interview with Joe Oliver, that I have never seen before:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence...eorge-zimmerman-pal-joe-oliver-epic-grilling/

(not sure if this site qualifies as MSM, but the clips I'm referring to are definitely from MSM)

and I have to say, with all due respect to Mr. Hornsby, if he thinks Joe Oliver was "good"...

:what:

First of all he won't even answer the question of whether he first knew GZ socially or from work...

then he contradicts himself on whether or not he knew GZ took anger management classes...

and more.

IMO JMO and all.

I will agree that JO did not look good but CB and LO ambushed him. I could not stick around to watch JC take a crack at the pinata. They never allowed him to finish his thoughts or his sentences. He also had to deal with numerous technical difficulties making him seem even more uncomfortable. Watching that interview when it happened made me think more of a kangaroo court than an impartial interogation.

I did not agree with many of their inferences such as CB's assertion that someone can't be a good friend if one does not know all of a person's criminal history, etc.

LO should be an impartial judge or investigator not a biased prosecutor which he claimed he would be very early when the story hit the national scene. I have not been impressed with his political work since he started. He is lazy, which he admitted quite frequently the first 6 months of his show, and quite mendacious in his presentation of story or issue. He has shown himself to be as untrustworthy as a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, although his closest equivalent would probably be Bill O'Reilly in terms of making fun of himself at times, which SO and RL rarely do.

IMO/JMO

 

[Karmady]

He wasn't arrested or charged because he was dead. IMO that doesn't mean he waived his right to stand his ground against a perceived threat before he died.

What I'm saying is, is that the SYG law simply doesn't apply to him under the circumstances. Whether or not Trayvon was defending himself will come up in the current trial and in any civil suit, but not as an SYG issue. That's all I'm saying -- the statute itself only applies as an immunity to arrest and prosecution. The "concept" of whether Trayvon was defending himself is pertinent, but the SYG law is not. jmoo

 

[uvamerica]

Mr. Hornsbys praise of Joe Oliver told me ... a lot.

I keep wondering when someone will be asking Kim Kardashian to comment on the case.

How close does he follow this case ?:waitasec:

 

[RANCH]

Maybe someone can answer this...I'm watching Investigation Discovery, and this piqued my interest.

If the bullet exited Trayvon's body, does that mean he was standing up? In other words, if he were laying on his back, would the bullet exit or not?

I'm not an expert but I have an opinion.
I believe that a lot of factors come into play on whether a bullet will exit a body.

Some kinds of ammunition have expanding bullets which are designed to open up and create a larger "wound channel" while traveling thru a body. That design would also impart all of it's energy inside of a person because it would tend to expand and stop its travel before leaving the person's body.

"Hardball" or full metal-jacket types of ammunition can penetrate much better than a expanding type of bullet. They tend to stay the same size of diameter and tend to remain intact when going thru a body.

It depends on a lot of things such as hitting bones or the angle of trajectory on whether any bullet will exit a body.

If a person is on the ground and the bullet passes thru their body, it will strike the ground and likely be found there. If their standing and the bullet goes thru their body, it will continue until it strikes something or falls to the ground. JMO.

 

[jaded cat]

Yes the School police investigator did claim just that.
Seems to me TM looked the same way to GZ.

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.”

And the school official was correct! TM was doing something wrong in a place where he shouldn't have been at the time. What does that have to do with GZ's comments about TM on the evening of Feb. 26th? Nothing, absolutely nothing. TM didn't have any jewelry, a screwdriver or a can of spray paint in his pockets or visible in his hands when GZ first saw him.

 

[highflyer]

Mr. Hornsbys praise of Joe Oliver told me ... a lot.

I keep wondering when someone will be asking Kim Kardashian to comment on the case.

So did stating in his blog that....

"But we do know that George Zimmerman has a (self reported) broken nose, a cut on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back."

We don't know that.

 

[i.b.nora]

How close does he follow this case ?:waitasec:

Mr. Hornsby or Ms. Kim Kardashian?

 

[jaded cat]

It's a perspective of what caused what here, and I think reasonable people can disagree.

Same with the analogy of the child getting killed by being run over. You can disagree, and be reasonable, that it was his running into the street that caused it, or you can be reasonable in a perspective that it was the car running over him that killed him.

You can say Trayvon is dead because GZ followed him, or you can say Trayvon is dead because a physical altercation started, which may very well have been begun by Travyon.

Phrasing it differently, and continuing to state that if GZ had stayed in his car Trayvon wouldn't be dead won't change the perspective of those who believe (and the law is on our side) that it's not a crime to follow someone and he was within the law to do that.

At some point here, we're going to have to decide that each perspective is valid, it just depends on how you view the world and causal relationships.

BBM

As I said, not a crime, just not very advisable when the police are already on the way. You can't remove the cell phone call from the equation, it's all part and parcel of the events that followed.

 

[lauriej]

Mr. Hornsbys praise of Joe Oliver told me ... a lot.

I keep wondering when someone will be asking Kim Kardashian to comment on the case.

--funny you should mention kim kardashian...

--SNL did a skit this week on zimmerman's lawyers etc------kim kardashian's line was in response to it taking 45 days to arrest george.

--kim--"45 days!!! that's like 1/2 a marriage!"

 

[Emma Peel]

Hmmm...

I agree with rhornsby.
I don't think JO did poorly.
I think LO and CBlow came across a bit over the top.

Have we learned anything about where GZ & JO worked?
Did JO really leave work to help out GZ? Is it possible his workplace gave him a paid leave, and JO is just respecting his employer's privacy on that issue?

 

[Emma Peel]

Mr. Hornsbys praise of Joe Oliver told me ... a lot.

I keep wondering when someone will be asking Kim Kardashian to comment on the case.

Interesting. What did it tell you?

 

[Adrienne37]

I will agree that JO did not look good but CB and LO ambushed him. I could not stick around to watch JC take a crack at the pinata. They never allowed him to finish his thoughts or his sentences. He also had to deal with numerous technical difficulties making him seem even more uncomfortable. Watching that interview when it happened made me think more of a kangaroo court than an impartial interogation.

I did not agree with many of their inferences such as CB's assertion that someone can't be a good friend if one does not know all of a person's criminal history, etc.

LO should be an impartial judge or investigator not a biased prosecutor which he claimed he would be very early when the story hit the national scene. I have not been impressed with his political work since he started. He is lazy, which he admitted quite frequently the first 6 months of his show, and quite mendacious in his presentation of story or issue. He has shown himself to be as untrustworthy as a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, although his closest equivalent would probably be Bill O'Reilly in terms of making fun of himself at times, which SO and RL rarely do.

IMO/JMO

I'm sorry but O'Donnell and Blow had every right in the world to "ambush" Joe Oliver. He should have been 100% up front about his relationship (or lack of) with Zimmerman. He came out insinuating that he was the best of friends with Zimmerman, more of an "uncle" figure to him, claiming all sorts of intimate knowledge, etc. It's best if you are going on TV to be as up front as possible as he should well know considering his previous employment in the media himself. Not once until O'Donnell and Blow "ambushed" Oliver did he ever state that he was Zimmerman's "media consultant." I fear Oliver's, Zimmerman Jr.'s, and Taaffe's desire to be on TV will come back to bite Zimmerman in the rear. They have done far more damage to Zimmerman's reputation than any good whatsoever.



~jmo~