• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A question not asked: Forensics in Zimmerman case..

SenfgasTN

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
3
Location
Knoxville, TN
Those making race an issue are feeding the flames, including those of us here that take part in that.

This thread, indeed this forum is, NOT about race.

Discuss the facts of the case responsibly w/o being side tracked and/or hijacking the thread. Will even go so far as to say that if your opinions aren't race neutral, then they do not belong here and will not be condoned.

Did I say that nice enough?

Yes, I apologize, my replies to the thread have been deleted.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Indeed. The MSM, and most of the sheeple out there who gobble up whatever the media puts out as gospel, without any ability to see past an agenda, are going to do what they always do.
The only reason they do so, is that folks actually give such nonsense the time of day, to begin with.

As for Z's case-should it go to Grand Jury or any court-should ,I would hope, disregard such nonsense, and focus on the actual, physical evidence, and forensics.
Witnesses to this thing who actually SAW anything useful seem to be few and far between, and less than entirely reliable anyway-if the 911 calls are any indication..
Looking at the TRAJECTORY of the shot that killed M should be THE telling element of what actually took place.

If Z was down, on the ground, and fired up into M, over him- that bullet track will show as such in a way that should be obvious enough. Same for the other way around, If it were Z on top of M, and firing down into him- the track will be very different, and obvious as well, I'd think. And that was the key point to my original post.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Yes, I apologize, my replies to the thread have been deleted.

Much appreciated - the intent of my prior statement on this was not to single out anyone but to refocus the thread, to remind people of the purpose of OCDO and that much of our strength is the resolve to deal in facts.

Race has been made an issue by the media and others - that is unfortunate. OCDO will take the high ground when discussing this - it is not to absolutely forbid any reference to race which can be a very emotion/volatile issue for some. The physical characteristics of a person aid in describing them for purposes of identification, but when such identifiers become the central theme, we all lose. Do we want a divided forum, much less a country split along such lines? Definitely not! Taking the high road is not always easy, but well worth the climb. Sometimes the choice of direction is but a matter of a few words or a single phrase.

Have cleaned up/removed the posts that were marked as deleted by individual posters both as a courtesy for having done so and to allow the thread to be read with greater ease.

Thank you gentlemen, your personal responsibility is to be commended.

Sorry about this interjection/diversion of the thread, but felt something needed to be said. Returning herewith to the previous discussion stream.
 

Echo4PapaBravo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
11
Location
Olathe, Kansas
Yeah, you gotta love how MSM shows only pictures of 12 year old TM and mug shots of Zimmerman. That in itself should be enough to prove to a reasonably intelligent person that the media is not to be trusted to deliver any sort of competently reliable info unless it fits into a pattern they are attempting to show to benefit their own agenda. In my opinion, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the people with their names on the articles and all host media outlets that omit or unjustly slant facts in order to affect public belief, and any false witnesses, should be charged with defamation of character and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The national media outlets should have separate charges in each state so that once found guilty we can actually take back the media and get some actual facts reported for a change. Just the opinion of someone who is sick and tired of the media being allowed to falsely report half-truths as fact and not be held accountable.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Yeah, you gotta love how MSM shows only pictures of 12 year old TM and mug shots of Zimmerman. That in itself should be enough to prove to a reasonably intelligent person that the media is not to be trusted to deliver any sort of competently reliable info unless it fits into a pattern they are attempting to show to benefit their own agenda. In my opinion, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the people with their names on the articles and all host media outlets that omit or unjustly slant facts in order to affect public belief, and any false witnesses, should be charged with defamation of character and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The national media outlets should have separate charges in each state so that once found guilty we can actually take back the media and get some actual facts reported for a change. Just the opinion of someone who is sick and tired of the media being allowed to falsely report half-truths as fact and not be held accountable.

Not a bad idea at all, actually. Though I'm not sure that such charges could be pressed, or by whom. A civil-suit, for sure, for Z to consider.
Law-types, weigh -in?
It's aggravating beyond belief that the media is granted free-reign to run amok with such stories-either ignoring, or shunting actual facts, in favor of inflaming, or sensationalizing things for their own gains- or out-right falsifying or "editing" things (and then claiming it was a mistake, not intentional...uh uh.)

And they continue to get away with doing so, simply because no one seems to call them to task on it.
Should probably heavily promote a campaign to boy-cot the companies who advertise with these media outlets, as well. It's a favorite tactic of the other side, when attacking media that doesnt toe the line for them.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
It gets back to one point.....when can you actually believe the media is giving the truth, let alone all the truth?

IMHO, you can't.

Once the smoke clears; if Z is acquitted, I hope his legal team will pursue some of the made up media 'facts'. Intentionally editing soemthing to portray something other than what it's not, should have some repercussions! :mad:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It takes many years to earn public trust - it can be lost in an instant.....and their have been many instances, far too many.

By and large the media's reputation and influence has become tainted.

There is a hue and cry for honest journalism, mostly being ignored.
 

Placementvs.Calibur

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
157
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Honor and integrity

Of which this administration, DOJ, and the lap dog media have known. Once you read through all the hype, and misrepresentation of the facts, this is really an attack on our gun rights, specifically our right to carry. Any other state, and any other situation where carrying is legal and the altercation led to the use of excessive force, Trayvon pounding Zimmermans head into the ground as witnessed by two people, would be enough to prove that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. Therefore, as a permit holder he justifiably acted to protect his own. That's where the stand your ground defense comes in, and that's what's at stake here.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Honor and integrity
Of which this administration, DOJ, and the lap dog media have known. Once you read through all the hype, and misrepresentation of the facts, this is really an attack on our gun rights, specifically our right to carry. Any other state, and any other situation where carrying is legal and the altercation led to the use of excessive force, Trayvon pounding Zimmermans head into the ground as witnessed by two people, would be enough to prove that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. Therefore, as a permit holder he justifiably acted to protect his own. That's where the stand your ground defense comes in, and that's what's at stake here.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
emphasis added.

What is lethal is not always excessive. If the only means of protection to be relied upon was that gun.. then in the circumstances which were given, it's employment and/or use would not be excessive. Now, if he had a tazer on him as well.. Then the results could have been different as he might have had ability to use a less lethal form of self defense.

After reading a few minutes ago that the Florida state attorney Angela Corey who was appointed to investigate is not seeking that the case goes before a Grand Jury is telling people that the evidence in the case does not justify a charge of first degree murder against Zimmerman.

He can still be arrested and charged.. but it will have to be a lesser crime.
 

Placementvs.Calibur

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
157
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Excuse me, but what I was referring to was the fact, established by two eye witnesses, that the altercation between the two, regardless of who started it, led to Trayvon using excessive and deadly force by pounding Mr. Z's head into the ground. Anywhere you have the right to carry would see that Mr. Z utilized self defense when his life was threatened. There's various degrees of assault, when you take it to the next level, which Trayvon did, anyone has the right to protect themselves. Being Mr. Z was a CHP holder he used his right to defend his life with his firearm. However, I'm not a liberal lawyer, or an anti-gun fool, or a race-chaser, who will try and twist the truth. These are the peolple behind the hoopla.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
 

ARADCOM

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
317
Location
NW Washington, Washington, USA
Stand Whose Ground?

Excuse me, but what I was referring to was the fact, established by two eye witnesses, that the altercation between the two, regardless of who started it, led to Trayvon using excessive and deadly force by pounding Mr. Z's head into the ground. Anywhere you have the right to carry would see that Mr. Z utilized self defense when his life was threatened. There's various degrees of assault, when you take it to the next level, which Trayvon did, anyone has the right to protect themselves. Being Mr. Z was a CHP holder he used his right to defend his life with his firearm. However, I'm not a liberal lawyer, or an anti-gun fool, or a race-chaser, who will try and twist the truth. These are the peolple behind the hoopla.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

So you, a legal CHP holder are walking down the street and you see someone you don't like and decide to assault him. Oops, you made a slight misjudgement and it looks like he's going to beat the heck out of you, instead. So, you pull your firearm and kill him. Self defense? In my state, WA, you can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.

So we have a juvenile carrying skittles walking home from the store and a armed adult LEO wannabe who was told by 911 not to follow the juvenile. Who do you think is the aggressor here?
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
So we have a juvenile carrying skittles walking home from the store and a armed adult LEO wannabe who was told by 911 not to follow the juvenile. Who do you think is the aggressor here?
Have you read the 911 transcript? Z stopped following M and returned to his vehicle. I suppose you could argue that Z was conniving enough to lie to the 911 caller about his actions and was really in hot pursuit of M when he told the 911 operator he was returning to his car, but that requires a serious violation of Occam's Razor.
 

ARADCOM

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
317
Location
NW Washington, Washington, USA
Say what?

Have you read the 911 transcript? Z stopped following M and returned to his vehicle. I suppose you could argue that Z was conniving enough to lie to the 911 caller about his actions and was really in hot pursuit of M when he told the 911 operator he was returning to his car, but that requires a serious violation of Occam's Razor.

Yeah, I really like the movie 'Contact', too. That Jodie Foster is just bitchin'.

OK. So what's your take on why the location of the incident was so close to the juveniles home and so far from Z's vehicle.
 
Last edited:

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
So we have a juvenile carrying skittles walking home from the store and a armed adult LEO wannabe who was told by 911 not to follow the juvenile. Who do you think is the aggressor here?

Even if all this is 100% true does not mean that Z was the aggressor. You seem to be mixing up your logic in here.

Just because person Z follows M even after 911 told him not to (suggested he not) does not mean 100% that he is the aggressor. It also does not mean that Z is an "armed adult LEO wannabe". I have been in similar situations as Z, does that mean that I am a LEO wannabe? No.

Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen? Then why should a dispatcher be held in a higher regard. People hinge their argument on that like it means something. If I called you to tell you this and I ignored your (logical) warnings does not change the situation much.


I am not suggesting what you are saying is wrong, but the "facts" that you used does not point to where you are heading. There is a whole bunch of assuming and implying on your part.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The speculation, innuendo, and name calling ill becomes this forum. There is no need to become part of the problem leading to the castigation of either party.

Stick to the facts gentlemen and meanwhile let the system work.
 

ARADCOM

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
317
Location
NW Washington, Washington, USA
Like Sgt. Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Even if all this is 100% true does not mean that Z was the aggressor. You seem to be mixing up your logic in here.

Just because person Z follows M even after 911 told him not to (suggested he not) does not mean 100% that he is the aggressor. It also does not mean that Z is an "armed adult LEO wannabe". I have been in similar situations as Z, does that mean that I am a LEO wannabe? No.

Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen? Then why should a dispatcher be held in a higher regard. People hinge their argument on that like it means something. If I called you to tell you this and I ignored your (logical) warnings does not change the situation much.


I am not suggesting what you are saying is wrong, but the "facts" that you used does not point to where you are heading. There is a whole bunch of assuming and implying on your part.

OK, the "LEO wannabe" was a cheap shot. I based that on Z's prior education and work history (fired from at least one other security job for being "overly aggressive) and I certainly didn't mean to impugn or demean anyone who works in security, loss prevention, or any other LE related field. My apologies if I offended anyone.

So you're saying if you were walking home from the store minding your own business and some random person started following you, chasing you, questioning what you're doing, you wouldn't consider that aggressive? Good luck with that!

I loved your line of "Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen?" Exactly! Z was the 'random' person and the juvenile is who he was trying to do 'something outside of his authority' too.

The poster I originally responded to said, "Have you read the 911 transcript? Z stopped following M and returned to his vehicle." He based that on Z's response to the dispatcher saying he didn't need to follow him. That response was "OK." So does "OK" mean I've stopped following him and am returning to my truck. I don't think so.

Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left.
He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, 'F-ing coons' or 'punks' at 2:22]
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don't need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

You see this part of the call,

"He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance."

You can plainly hear Z running after him on the call. Also, he would not give the dispatcher a place for the police to meet him. He told the dispatcher to have the police call him when they got there. I presume this to be because he didn't know where his pursuit of the juvenile was going to lead him.

Is there enough evidence in all this to convict Z of anything? I don't know. What I DO know is there is more than enough evidence to show that the police response of, 'Good job, go home, we'll clean up the mess' was completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
OK, the "LEO wannabe" was a cheap shot. I based that on Z's prior education and work history (fired from at least one other security job for being "overly aggressive) and I certainly didn't mean to impugn or demean anyone who works in security, loss prevention, or any other LE related field. My apologies if I offended anyone.

So you're saying if you were walking home from the store minding your own business and some random person started following you, chasing you, questioning what you're doing, you wouldn't consider that aggressive? Good luck with that!

I loved your line of "Also, if some random person told you to not to do something outside of their authority to command you, would you listen?" Exactly! Z was the 'random' person and the juvenile is who he was trying to do 'something outside of his authority' too.

The poster I originally responded to said, "Have you read the 911 transcript? Z stopped following M and returned to his vehicle." He based that on Z's response to the dispatcher saying he didn't need to follow him. That response was "OK." So does "OK" mean I've stopped following him and am returning to my truck. I don't think so.

Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left.
He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, 'F-ing coons' or 'punks' at 2:22]
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don't need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

You see this part of the call,

"He's running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he's headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance."

You can plainly hear Z running after him on the call. Also, he would not give the dispatcher a place for the police to meet him. He told the dispatcher to have the police call him when they got there. I presume this to be because he didn't know where his pursuit of the juvenile was going to lead him.

Is there enough evidence in all this to convict Z of anything? I don't know. What I DO know is there is more than enough evidence to show that the police response of, 'Good job, go home, we'll clean up the mess' was completely wrong.


:banghead:

:banghead:




A fair bit of more info has come out since the initial report/911 releases you seem to be clinging to. I estimate you have about 3 weeks worth of catching-up to do, before weighing in on this, Inlcuding, especially, reading the original post here, and the more detailed forensic evidence releases that followed.
b bye

:banana:
 
Last edited:

ARADCOM

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
317
Location
NW Washington, Washington, USA
Oh Yeah!

:banghead:

:banghead:




A fair bit of more info has come out since the initial report/911 releases you seem to be clinging to. I estimate you have about 3 weeks worth of catching-up to do, before weighing in on this, Inlcuding, especially, reading the original post here, and the more detailed forensic evidence releases that followed.
b bye

:banana:

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't aware the transcript of the 911 call had been changed in the last 3 weeks. Where can I find the new, updated one??
 

Placementvs.Calibur

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
157
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Florida Statutes

A dose of reality:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
Florida Statutes 2011
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
s. 776.013
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't aware the transcript of the 911 call had been changed in the last 3 weeks. Where can I find the new, updated one??

YOu know that wasn't what he was meaning. He was saying that the transcripts show only part of the story. You do realize that don't you?

If we know that person A wants to fight person B
Person B ends up killing A

We don't know B was justified in using deadly physical force. Understand? A could have seen B in a public place and decided to apologize for everything, B could have still been holding a grudge and killed A in cold blood.

So the more important facts are what actually happened, not what the 911 points to what happened. You think just because the facts point to something means it actually happened. You rule out other possible scenarios. This is what the media did and they are highly criticized for doing it.

A dose of reality

I am not understanding what you are getting at with this. Does this say that a person is not justified in using deadly force because they purposely entered into a situation that turned physical? I don't see how we need a dose of reality because we say look at the whole facts we are given and keep an open mind in case other facts arise that point to an other outcome.
 
Last edited:
Top