Quote:
kbp wrote:
Scoping: I did not mean to infer that scoping is physical aggression, merely setting the stage that led up to the confrontation.
chipbennett wrote:
If it didn't constitute physical aggression, and wasn't in any other way threatening, then it doesn't constitute a mitigating factor.
kbp wrote:
Left vehicle to track: George went the wrong way to find a street sign …as he said he was doing.
chipbennett wrote:
Point being: Martin had eluded Zimmerman's visual contact well before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle. Martin didn't see Zimmerman get out of his vehicle (unless he had already circled back, or was waiting in ambush all along - neither of which corroborate a reasonable fear regarding Zimmerman's imminent actions).
kbp wrote:
Possibility Martin saw gun early: The @ "5 o'clock" should mean it was always concealed from Trayvon's view since Trayvon was always in front or on top throughout the time span between confrontation and gun shot. That theory has the accuracy of both sides then in question, so which is correct?
chipbennett wrote:
That Zimmerman's gun was in an IWB holster at the 5:00 position is not a matter of contention. IIRC, that is the exact description from one of the SPD officer statements. That's where Zimmerman's gun was, and he was wearing a jacket that would further conceal an IWB holster. I can state with 100% certainty that unless Zimmerman brandished his gun, Martin did not see that gun while Zimmerman was upright.
kbp wrote:
Not sure why you say "Martin's actions belie early sight of concealed gun." That's why I think Bernie may say Trayvon saw the gun before he hit George, a reaction to seeing George reach for ___.
chipbennett wrote:
None of Martin's actions were reasonable or prudent for someone who saw someone else with a gun, and who believed that said gun would be used imminently.
When responding to the topic of "mitigating factors," I pointed out what Bernie may show constituted "pursued" in the "Scoping, Followed in vehicle, and Left vehicle to track" because George's statement could be used to show conduct one might take as such, and the frame of mind (fear) it might create just before Trayvon might have seen the gun during the initial phase of the confrontation as George searched for his cell phone.
I do not dispute the 5:00 holster position. The issue may be whether or not Trayvon could have seen the gun just prior to when he struck George in the nose, if he could have taken George's action as trying to reach for it.
Our discussion seemed to progress to picking apart every detail involved in the "mitigating factors." Could that be an example of what's to come? If the back & forth between Bernie and the defense does the same thing, then Bernie has had the opportunity to plant reasonable doubt that Trayvon committed any crimes leading up to the point in time when the gun shot occurred. Maybe his goal is accomplished …a nationally broadcast show that leaves the public believing a trial was necessary.
Quote:
kbp wrote:
Not if Bernie hopes to put on a show. But could he not call the officer that participated in a "walk through" re-enactment and ask if George knew what Trayvon was thinking when George claimed Trayvon saw the gun and if it's possible Trayvon saw it earlier?
chipbennett wrote:
Isn't it hearsay to ask person A if person B knew what person C was thinking at a given point in time?
Also: establishing that it is possible that scenario X took place merely adds reasonable doubt, which once again favors the defense.
kbp wrote:
See remark above on the 5:00 theory. Also, with a loose shirt or jacket on, the reach has to get past it. Maybe the question can be when the gun was more likely to become visible, as George reached to various locations feeling for the cell phone or when Trayvon was in front and on top of him pounding away.
chipbennett wrote:
The position of the IWB holster is not theory; it is established fact.
Given the length of Zimmerman's jacket, the only way for it to rise high enough to display the IWB-holstered gun would be for Zimmerman to reach high over his head with his right hand - and even then, the gun might still not have been visible.
The most likely, and only plausible, way for Martin to have discovered the gun would have been when Zimmerman was on the ground, and struggling to get up, during which his jacket could rise.
You make my point better than I did myself. Ask the officer how could George have known what Trayvon was thinking or knew …what instant did Trayvon know (or suspect) George had a gun?
Quote:
kbp wrote:
Maybe, then maybe they'd need another Frye hearing to consider expert opinions on outrunning a bullet in that situation and when a person would feel safe attempting it. On a more serious note, according to George, he was still able to yell for help and "squirm" to get his head off the sidewalk, so he was evidently not so out of it that he couldn't have grabbed his gun …and he did soon thereafter.
chipbennett wrote:
The ability to point a gun at someone straddling you, and hitting a torso directly above you, does not in any way correlate to the ability to aim a gun at someone who has attempted to run away. Especially in the dark and rain. Especially when on one's back. And especially when one's vision an mental clarity has been clouded by a broken nose and subsequent assault, including blunt trauma to the back of the head.
kbp wrote:
That translates to not being absolutely certain as I read your comment, but absolutely not testimony it was Trayvon screaming. What Trayvon did NOT do is a factor for the jury to consider.
chipbennett wrote:
In the opinion of Witness 6, Witness 6 is certain regarding who was screaming. BDLR introduced the "could you see his mouth moving" canard, in order to pollute his testimony with reasonable doubt.
Bernie would have again introduced questions about Trayvon's guilt: When could he have been certain he could outrun the bullet, and How could #6 know who was screaming.
Quote:
kbp wrote:
No, I meant "Trayvon's guilt." Bernie has not struck me as trying to convict George, but more like he has been trying to defend Trayvon …reasonable doubt that Trayvon committed a crime. How many times has Crump and others mentioned that Trayvon is NOT on trial.
chipbennett wrote:
Again: this is why the appeals court matters. Reasonable doubt that Martin committed an assault that justified Zimmerman's use of deadly force in self-defense is plainly not sufficient to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, and that Zimmerman did commit second-degree murder.
kbp wrote:
How can Bernie overcome the fact that George had, at the minimum, serious bodily harm resulting from non-stop "MMA" attack that would give any reasonable person fear of great bodily harm? (In most states George's injuries would be evidence of great bodily harm.) I do not think Bernie can, so he'll debate what "is" is trying to lessen the damage obvious and justify having taken this to court, while defending Trayvon.
chipbennett wrote:
And that is why, should there be a conviction, the DCA will overturn it.
Conviction or not… Corey and Bernie are off the hook for abusing their authority, having showed a trial was necessary, Trayvon's legend as the Skittle teenager is rock solid in the minds of those that wanted to believe it, and the Scheme Team is moving on to their next target$ …of course, no matter the outcome, I hope they settle that sanctions issue!
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
