Verdict Watch Thread Saturday July 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the walk through with LE Zimmerman did not "fire from the hip". Zimmerman claimed to have raised the gun up and out far enough away from his left arm so that he did not shoot himself. But then that leads to asking yourself if you believe his walk through with LE since it does not match up with the non emergency call that was recorded.
 
I'm torn between what verdict to give, I don't believe he deserves life, or death, but I'm not sure he should "walk" either. Again, he's not a murderer and I don't believe he had that in his heart that night, but all this happened because of his assumption. I also believe he's not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. He played a MAJOR role in that night.. again, not sure what verdict to give.. manslaughter in a lesser degree???? I don't know :blushing:

I don't think he had murder in his heart,but I do think he went in with the thought that he had his gun if TM gave him any trouble and that may be why he was so quick to reach for his weapon.
I also watched his face when the very first pics of a deceased TM were shown.He looked at the picture and then looked away and (IMO) his expression was a 'so *advertiser censored***** what' and "pfft' as though TM didn't matter at all.
Between that and his comments during the SH interview,I'm convinced he has no remorse at all.
Many might say they wouldn't either,but even if killing is justified,wouldn't you feel at least a small amount of sorrow for the loss of life?
IMO
 
Starting with the firing of the IT guy this AM, the stink behind this case is about to be let loose. It's not going to be pretty for them.

Justice for George

IMO

I just read about another radio interview by Dershowitz. I so hope he gets more actively involved in this. It's clear to me that no one is going to pay pay serious attention to this travesty and make some heads roll unless big voices get involved on the other side of the issue. jmo
 
I just have to say that I think the Prosecuters nailed the closing statements. For "Guy" to bring most of the woman to tears is pretty incredible.

Justice for Trayvon!
 
My husband can't wait for this to be over so he can have me back.. He keeps coming in, is it over yet? Nope, not yet... :fence:
 
I don't doubt what you're saying, I just have a few questions for you (or anyone else that knows more about recoil than I.)

If the handgun recoiled, wouldn't everyone's respective positions keep it from ever getting close to George's face?

If George fired "from the hip", wouldn't the recoil push it back towards his hip?

Or, if there was sufficient room between George and Trayvon for a recoil, wouldn't Trayvon's falling on George block the gun from recoiling?

I'm not quite saying what I am picturing... I guess I am thinking that in order for a gun to recoil to George's face, wouldn't have had to recoil in an L shape? That is, assuming there was any recoil, which I am not sure even happened.

I would like to hear the answer too. Because I would assume that GZ fired from his hip too. But IMO the wound was rather high up on TM's body. It would seem awkward to have someone on top of you and you raise your hand all the way up to his chest to fire the bullet. I would think TM would have been shot in the side closer to the lower part of his body.

Anybody have thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have seen something repeatedly discussed in the thread that, IMO, is an unfounded assertion based on little evidence.

Let's try to take an objective look at the notion that Zimmerman's weapon recoiling into his face may have cut his nose, bloodied it, potentially broken it, and slammed his head into the ground.

Here are three videos of the weapon being fired:

Kel-Tec PF9 Range Day (Part 1) - YouTube
Kel-Tec PF9 Range Review: EDC or Closet Bound? - YouTube
KEL-TEC PF-9 ~ RANGE DAY - YouTube

This is not the amount of recoil I would expect to see to cause significant injury to someone. Even in one video where the individual isn't controlling the weapon well:

Kel-Tec PF9 range day - YouTube

It's still easily controlled, doesn't ever go flying out of the shooter's hands, and clearly doesn't expend enough force to give someone black eyes, a broken nose, and slam their head into the ground.

Let's take another look at the laceration on his nose:

1337301264_1.jpg


It is off to one side, and maybe a quarter of an inch long. If it was a gun recoiling so hard that it slammed his head back into the sidewalk, why is the injury so small? Logically, if the weapon hit the very center of his nose, it would have stopped there... but the lacerations would be equilateral - there would be two lines from the rear sights on each side of his nose. If the weapon only hit one side, and was with such great force... It seems to me that the weapon would have kept travelling, creating a much larger laceration down the side of his nose and possibly even an eye injury if we're to believe the force of the recoil was enough to bloody his nose, cause significant swelling, and potentially slam his head into the ground.

Let's not forget that his nose was, in fact, swollen and bloody:

62_t%20zimmerman.jpg


Now, onto the question about hollow points.

It was asserted factually by someone that hollow points kill instantly or close to instantly. That they're meant for killing, and that someone who shoots someone with a hollow point round wishes to kill that person. It's also been stated numerous times that hollow points are used because they're so frangible.

Let's dissect this one by one:

Police almost exclusively use hollow point rounds because of the desire to not over-penetrate and their effectiveness at stopping the threat. However, I'm sure we are all aware that everyone the police shoots does not die. In fact, people have been hit multiple times by multiple police officers and still lived. The assertion that hollow points are some magical killer bullet that kills everyone instantly or close to instantly is patently false. Many factors go into death by gunshots, and a surprisingly large number of people live despite being shot.

The second assertion is that they are meant for killing. This is pretty true. However, the assertion makes it seem as if all types of rounds (except LTL, of course) are not meant for killing. If you are using deadly force, you are beyond the point of trying to keep someone alive. The whole premise behind deadly force is that the person will possibly die. You don't just shoot someone to wound them. You don't use a round to defend yourself based on how well it doesn't stop a target.

This leads into the third point - hollow point bullets expand inside the body. They aren't necessarily any more "frangible" than a regular fully-jacketed round. .223 rifle slugs are well-known for their frangibility and they're high-speed FMJ rounds. The point behind hollow point bullets is that they expend all of their force inside the body cavity/wound channel by expanding outward and mushrooming. This delivers a more devastating wound, depending on where the individual is hit, and also helps to prevent the round from exiting the body. Because all of the force is used up when the bullet mushrooms, the velocity of the round is greatly reduced when it enters the body and the threat of over-penetration and possibly hitting something you did not intend to hit is greatly lessened.

In my opinion, using hollow points is vastly more responsible than using fully jacketed rounds. If you're using deadly force, the threat needs to be stopped - HPs help effect this. You also don't want to over-penetrate and hit someone or something you did not intend to hit - HPs win in this category again.

:twocents:

All in my opinion as someone that is very proficient with firearms, works in the industry, has shot everything from .22LR to .50BMG, regularly places in the top third of shooting competitions, and has a concealed carry permit.

I am proficient in firearms as well, and I respectfully think you are leaving out something important.

The question is not whether or not a 9mm has the recoil energy to smash someone's face or break their nose. I'll answer that right now and say that unless you tried to break your nose with the thing you would have a hard time.

BUT...

Limp Wristing an auto -- which he basically had to do (if you believe Trayvon was mounted as Zimmerman suggests) -- is certainly not going to help with control of the weapon, and it is very easy to picture the SLIDE coming back, clocking him in the face, and scratching his nose. It could even bloody it I suppose.

IN ANY CASE, I do not see how this matters. No disrespect to anyone, but this is all irrelevant. There is little doubt the two were in some kind of scuffle. In my opinion it was relatively minor, but that's obviously subjective. They were in a scuffle, maybe Trayvon hit him with a fist or elbow and maybe not. He damn sure didn't punch him in the face twenty plus times or beat his head on concrete as Zimmerman suggested (note, Zimmerman has no hair, making that trick difficult to accomplish anyway, which is why many fighters and inmates keep their hair short).

MY OPINION ONLY
 
Well, here it is, SATURDAY, and here I am still parked behind this computer screen :banghead: I think I'm actually now glued to this chair... GET A LIFE PAPERDOLL!!!! :scared:

Yes, but just look at what fantastic company you're in!
 
I don't doubt what you're saying, I just have a few questions for you (or anyone else that knows more about recoil than I.)

If the handgun recoiled, wouldn't everyone's respective positions keep it from ever getting close to George's face?

If George fired "from the hip", wouldn't the recoil push it back towards his hip?

Or, if there was sufficient room between George and Trayvon for a recoil, wouldn't Trayvon's falling on George block the gun from recoiling?

I'm not quite saying what I am picturing... I guess I am thinking that in order for a gun to recoil to George's face, wouldn't it have had to recoil in an L shape? That is, assuming there was any recoil, which I am not sure even happened.

I'm not sure what your question is but all guns produce recoil when fired.

It's my personal opinion and apparently the state in this case, that the 9mm handgun did not cause GZ to suffer a broken nose when he fired it. MOO.
 
Could the judge's choice of relevance v authenticity as the basis for her decision make any difference in the appeals process?

just changes the grounds for reversal imo. Hornsby agrees that it was error if I heard him correctly. He also thinks the tox was relevant from the perspective of verifying George's description on the NEN call. jmo
 
Did anyone else come into this thinking George was guilty?

Ans what changed your mind?

I thought he was guilty until may of last year when the truth finally started coming out. IMO

Yes, I thought he was guilty of manslaughter. I also thought that the prosecution would have a very hard time proving it. Not because I knew all the ins and outs of the case, but because of the fact that there was seemingly so much question surrounding the event. I did not follow this case like I normally do with others. I only heard the buzz words in the media: teenager in hoodie gunned down, skittles, wannabe cop, etc.

I bought in to the idea that this over-zealous cop wannabe got out of his car and stalked this kid with malicious intent. On the surface, it sure does look that way.

I decided to not investigate anything about the case, and just watch the trial. At the conclusion of day 3, I was like holy sh#%, he is not guilty.

As soon as I understood what was really happening in their neighborhood, robberies, burglaries, etc and had a better insight in to George's perspective, it made sense to me why Trayvon was suspicious to him. I know this is an enormous point of contention for a lot of people. But we each have lived our own lives and have reasons for being suspicious of what we are suspicious of. Hearing from the neighborhood witnesses, I have better insight in to their community. The prosecution could not deliver one single witness that said that George was a hateful, over-zealous, creepy guy. In fact, the witnesses that they presented said pretty much the opposite.

I've always said and still say that getting out of the car was bad judgement. I wish it never happened. I wish that Trayvon came back to Brandi's house a half hour earlier. I wish that George never went to Target. All the wishing in the world doesn't change the horrible events that happen in our world. I am adamant in my believe that getting out of that car, bad judgement or not, does not make him a stalker with hate in his heart! I think it's entirely plausible that he wanted to just keep an eye on Trayvon to see where he went. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was running around that neighborhood chasing down Trayvon. Some people believe he was. Belief is not enough to convict.

And even though I personally am not a gun supporter for my own reasons, I do understand that per law, people can have them. George obtained his gun legally and has a right to carry it. I can't hold that against him, whether I like it or not. Makes sense to me that it was loaded. Why carry a weapon for safety that is not loaded. Like they said in the Arias trial, what are you going to do - throw it at the person? Most people I know that carry guns have no intention whatsoever of going out with hate in their heart to gun people down. They have it just in case.

Finally, John Good, Captain Carter and the investigating officers were extremely compelling for me.

I could go on, but I think you get my points.

All, IMO
 
I'm not even sure that the gun was anywhere near his face when the shots were fired. There's too much time to move it from his holster up to near his face for that to be likely. I assert he most likely drew it (made sure he drew it properly), pointed it at Martin, and shot him.

:twocents:


If the gun was close to George's face, wouldn't there have been some sort of visible powder burns?

(But I don't think he had the gun at his face either. Imo, you don't sight a pistol if you are shooting close range.)
 
Limp Wristing an auto -- which he basically had to do (if you believe Trayvon was mounted as Zimmerman suggests) -- is certainly not going to help with control of the weapon, and it is very easy to picture the SLIDE coming back, clocking him in the face, and scratching his nose. It could even bloody it I suppose.

I totally agree that if it were close enough to his face, the slide itself or even the rear sights could have caused the laceration. That, however, is not the assertion that's being made. The conclusion has been that the weapon was responsible for the nose injury as a whole (bloody and swollen), which you seem to agree would necessitate him pretty much pistol-whipping himself in the face.
 
But capillaries would have been cut, and blood would still be present on the weapon from the severance of the capillaries. It wasn't just a little razor cut. There was a nice laceration going on.


So there was some crazy acrobatics and the gun that's over 5" long from blade sight to rear sight somehow fit in between the 2-3" length of a human nose?

I might go with Occam's razor on that one.


So I assume this means you could not find an example of a 9mm ever giving someone a bloody nose from the recoil alone, as has been consistently suggested. Now we're moving the goalposts and Trayvon is forcefully pushing Zimmerman's gun and hands back towards his head at the same time.

Let's do this experiment. Takes literally 5 seconds of your time. I would urge everyone in the thread that is interested in this assertion to do the same.

Take your hand and form a fist with it. With the outside edge of your thumb's knuckle, slowly move it towards your face to your nose. Get a feel for how difficult it would be for something traveling with any amount of force to just stop at that one area of your nose and only leave a 1/4" mark. Imagine the force necessary to bloody a nose and make it swell to the size seen in the picture. Gather up all the intellectual honesty you can muster and try to rationalize how something moving at that level of force would only cut a 1/4" section of his nose and not continue to cut down the side of his nose and below the eye, or even go into the eye. It is simply not feasible or rational for this to be the case.

:twocents:

The medical expert said he was hit on the right side of his nose, with a one handed grip, you have zero way of knowing if that barrel turned n ANY way or only 2” or 5" hit the nose. You have no way to determine where, how hard, or what injuries exactly would be caused or where exactly he fired from. You know and I know NO ONE would be stupid enough to recreate or try to to prove it's not possible the recoil caused his injuries. Because it's possible and probable.
 
I caught the very end of Nancy Grace last night and almost fell out of my chair. She was THISCLOSE to siding with the defense. IMO. She said as a prosecutor she weighed her cases heavily on the ME evidence and this ME failed horribly. She didn't even cut off or insult Taffe who was also on her show. Again I only saw the end but I was very surprised by her non-bias.
NG has been sooooooooo pro state, but now they are getting figures in their viewership. that back the defense more than the state, so they are try to cover their bases.
In fact, it was one of the attorneys on HLN this AM listing the reversible errors!!
The slanted media coverage in this case has caused so much harm. Between their coverage and the state's agenda, it's amazing to me that so many saw the truth in spite of it.

IMO
 
According to the walk through with LE Zimmerman did not "fire from the hip". Zimmerman claimed to have raised the gun up and out far enough away from his left arm so that he did not shoot himself. But then that leads to asking yourself if you believe his walk through with LE since it does not match up with the non emergency call that was recorded.


I saw that too.. I've always wondered how he shot TM, how he was able to get his gun out of his holster so fast.. That walk through doesn't look right to me when he's describing how he shot TM. It's like he stopped TM's arm with is arm, pulled out his gun and shot.. I think TM wasn't leaning that far over him when he got shot. I have always thought that GZ didn't need to shoot that there was a small window like when TM saw the gun, and I believe he did. Also, GZ could have said to TM that he had a gun and would use it if he didn't stop. I'M SO CONFUSED.. LOL
 
If the gun was close to George's face, wouldn't there have been some sort of visible powder burns?

(But I don't think he had the gun at his face either. Imo, you don't sight a pistol if you are shooting close range.)

Burns, probably not. Powder? Certainly. However, they didn't really do a GSR test, I assume, because they already knew who shot who.

:twocents:
 
Blood came after the recoil not at the same time. I doubt he wiped his face with his gun.

You have no way of knowing which part of the weapon hit his nose.
There are cuts and scrapes by the bridge and tip.
I implore you to fire THIS weapon with one hand, 4 inches from your face with someone Trayvon's size pushing your arm back towards your head while lying on the ground with you're head above concrete.....and get back to me.

In my medical opinion, the cut on GZ nose is consistent with being punched in the nose. It is a small cut and on the nasal bones. The nose is mainly cartilage. I don't know a lot about recoil, but it does not make sense to me that the injury would be recoil as GZ face would have been at the level of TM stomach. It would make sense medically that GZ fired from his side. The cut is just so small. However anything is possible. IMO.

ETA: I showed the pics to my doctor husband. In his professional opinion, it looked like a cut from the force of a knuckle or a fingernail. He knows zero about this case and I only showed him the pics. :seeya:
 
I'm currently watching the hearing that preceded his, of Mr White, on YT. It is quite interesting. The prosecution has an obligation to release everything, I guess this guy wanted to make sure that it was. Good for him, I see a nice settlement in his future. IMO.

I have no problem with him saying whatever he thinks is right. But why continue to work for the State if he felt that strongly? Why not resign and go public? I have no respect for him at all.

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
4,082
Total visitors
4,230

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,846
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top