HOW LONG DID MARTIN LIVE?
Associate Medical Examiner Shiping Bao told jurors Friday that Martin was alive from one to 10 minutes after he was shot in the heart by Zimmerman. Later, he conceded that his testimony was different from a deposition he gave last year in which he said the teen lived one to three minutes after the gunshot. During a prickly cross-examination, Bao said it was possible Martin may have been able to move after being shot. That is important because Martin's arms are positioned differently in a photo than the way Zimmerman described them being after he fired the shot.
Zimmerman lied about almost everything. Innocent good guys who are forced to defend themselves don't do that. Guilty vigilante-minded killers who are also stupid do.
My prediction: he'll be acquitted just like O.J. Simpson.
It will be interesting to see what happens if he is acquitted. The government paid sabbatical I took in Iraq made me appreciate the important step we took somewhere in our history. For the most part, everyone made the decision to let an impartial third party, be it a judge or jury arbitrate a conflict or legal issue. The majority of religious groups also support this process.
ReplyDeleteIn many other countries, if someone doesn't agree with the judge, they just ignore the decision. And some religious leaders actively encourage this.
The big question is, will everyone respect the jury's decision, or will some use it as an excuse to wreak havoc on the populace.
The medical examiner said that Martin lived one to ten minutes after being shot. Zimmerman said he lived one to three minutes after being shot. Where's the lie, exactly?
ReplyDeleteWell the first lie is the vague "one to three minutes." GZ was present. He could have been more specific, if he was telling the truth that is. And what was he doing during those minutes, trained watchman that he was? Was he applying pressure to the wound? If so, he'd know exactly how long the boy lived. If not, why not?
DeleteAfter an event of this nature, a person's assessment of time is often questionable. Did Zimmerman have a watch? But "one to three" minutes is within the window that the medical examiner gave--one to ten minutes. To call it a lie, you'd have to show that Zimmerman's statement was in conflict with the evidence.
DeleteWhy do you think he'll be aquitted? You don't think a jury of his peers will see things the way you do?
ReplyDeleteWell, for one thing, that is not a jury of his peers. But the reason I think this is because the prosecution did not prove its case sufficiently and if the defense makes any gains this week, he'll walk - just like O.J.
DeleteHow are his fellow citizens not a jury of his peers?
DeleteAnd the prosecution didn't make a good case because they didn't have the evidence, right? So why would you fault anyone for siding with the defense? Does this shed a new light on why the police didn't press charges, and how maybe the media was grossly irresponsible when they worked up racial tensions?
DeleteYou're kidding right, Greg? Five white women and one Hispanic woman are his peers? I guess if you mean they all come from the same planet or that they're all humans, yes they would be his peers.
DeleteTS, what did you have to say when O.J. got acquitted?
DeleteNo, don't answer that. You're honesty would have to suffer. You're like Greg. You'd say anything to further the argument.
Mikeb, do you or don't you believe that all citizens are equal under the law? What about the jury makes them not his peers?
DeleteBut I'll answer your O.J. question. I was pleased with the verdicts of both his trials for the incident in question. The police did a sloppy job of investigating the murders, and that ruined any chance of a fair trial. I do think that he committed the crimes, but given the misconduct of law enforcement, no other verdict would have been appropriate. But he did deserve the verdict that he received in the civil trial.
I’ll answer anyway.
DeleteI didn’t follow the OJ case that closely, so I didn’t form my own opinion. I do think it is good that the jury didn’t automatically side with the court of public opinion. The difference with OJ, is that they never caught the “real killer”, which doesn’t help his reputation. I also accept that though it doesn’t look good for OJ, our criminal justice system is built around the strict standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, therefore it is extremely important that people “get away with it” when the evidence isn’t there, or the police/prosecution bumble the case.
There it is. I don’t know how my honesty suffers from saying that.
If he is aquitted, the prosecution didn't have a case in the first place. Which would be the reason the first prosecuter didn't bring charges in the first place. This is all politically motivated.
ReplyDelete