Tests only identify Zimmerman's DNA on handgun

[ekg]

You're wrong on your comment of how the gun could be grabbed and following that pattern is just you showing your lack of knowledge.

Here's a a picture that you used:

Now take your left hand and grab the gun, while it's in the holster.
If you're being honest, you'll find that your thumb goes between the gun and the person, the web of your thumb will be on top of the gun (in front of the rear sight), and your first finger is going to be against the top of grip (between it and the trigger guard), with the rest of your fingers against the hoster.

Try it.
Have a friend get a toy semi-auto pistol and holster and wear it like you picture.
Have him lay down, you sit on top of him, and reach down and try to grab the gun.]
This will show you that you don't know what you're talking about and hopefully will give you time to ponder the rest of your assumptions.

Now; after typing all of this, I don't think you're going to consider anything that goes against your already pre-conceived "knowledge" of what you think you know.

I don't exactly know why you had to be a douche bag when you said all this, but I guess that's just the running theme now..

anyway, I did your test and you're right... but it's not conclusive since I am also right.. and probably 10 other people would be to.. since the positions of the gun,holster,angle of TM's hand,how tight the holster was, the angle of the grip.... etc.. would all bring different outcomes... so thank you for showing me how it could have happened, why you were a dick about it is beyond me though..add in that I said it's a moot point anyway, thus making the 'no DNA' on the gun hardly a reason to indict Z..and your snobbery becomes petty and weak... so what was it's purpose?

secondly, did you try my test while you were being such an ass in your reply to me? Ya know the one about putting a book or wrist brace slightly lower than your armpit.. squeezing it for your life because if you let go, the person may get your gun and kill you... and while squeezing, reaching towards up towards your waist and towards your backpocket/hip area?

it's impossible to do.. your wrist and elbow don't bend that way.. you would have to let go of whatever it is you're squeezing under you arm. If you're honest then you'll concede this... but I won't hold my breath since you're first reply to a neutral and [intended to be] helpful post was to be an asshat because of your uncompromising ideology can't bear anything that isn't in exact line with your thoughts.

while giving your theory a shot...there's something else you need to consider. something you forgot to notice.... you've got to add someone straddling your hips. TM was atop Z remember? His thighs were straddling Z.. no matter how high his 'bottom' was on Z's body(chest,stomach, or pelvis area) , that gun was pinned by either TM's thighs or calves..which would have not only blocked the gun, but squeezed the holster closed more making it that much more difficult for his hand to slide in it and grab the trigger/barrel.. but once again, I don't care about whether he touched the gun, Z's 1st statement didn't mention he touched it. me bringing it up again was just to show how many different scenarios there are besides yours and mine when it comes to whether the grip or the trigger could be reached..

anyway, back to what I was saying.

try it yourself.. have someone straddle you..and put their hand under a little lower than your armpit and squeeze that hand down..now reach for your gun on your waistband while its being squeezed in between your side and the persons straddling you thighs/calves..pull the gun out and fire it.. and never let go of their arm under your armpit.

that gun is pinned and your elbow doesn't bend that way..So how did Z's hand bend to get the gun out of a holster that was pinned to his side while pinning an arm under his pit.. all at the same time with the same arm? if your honest you'll admit Z's scenario couldn't have happened the way he said it did.

TM grabbing GZ gun could have happened, you've proven that to me.. but GZ couldn't have pulled his gun and shot TM if the events he described actually happened.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, I didn't say anything about the gun. There are many aspects of his story he has changed. I went and viewed the Hannity interview, I did a comparison with his story to the police. There are many details that are different. Zimmerman should not have done the Gannity interview, either. The guy has made some bad decisions.

This book is damaging, whether you think so, or not. This guy ho wrote it is no friend of Zimmerman's. He will be called to testify and either he discredits himself or he discredits Zimmerman.

You came in here cheering about how this hurts his credibility. I simply point out that this doesn't hurt his credibility at all, I don't even know why they wasted time testing DNA on the gun. Seriously. It wasted their taxpayers' money and doesn't prove anything at all since there was no claim that Trayvon had hold of the gun.

 

[Damocles]

I don't exactly know why you had to be a douche bag when you said all this, but I guess that's just the running theme now..

anyway, I did your test and you're right... but it's not conclusive since I am also right.. and probably 10 other people would be to.. since the positions of the gun,holster,angle of TM's hand,how tight the holster was, the angle of the grip.... etc.. would all bring different outcomes... so thank you for showing me how it could have happened, why you were a dick about it is beyond me though..add in that I said it's a moot point anyway, thus making the 'no DNA' on the gun hardly a reason to indict Z..and your snobbery becomes petty and weak... so what was it's purpose?

secondly, did you try my test while you were being such an ass in your reply to me? Ya know the one about putting a book or wrist brace slightly lower than your armpit.. squeezing it for your life because if you let go, the person may get your gun and kill you... and while squeezing, reaching towards up towards your waist and towards your backpocket/hip area?

it's impossible to do.. your wrist and elbow don't bend that way.. you would have to let go of whatever it is you're squeezing under you arm. If you're honest then you'll concede this... but I won't hold my breath since you're first reply to a neutral and [intended to be] helpful post was to be an asshat because of your uncompromising ideology can't bear anything that isn't in exact line with your thoughts.

while giving your theory a shot...there's something else you need to consider. something you forgot to notice.... you've got to add someone straddling your hips. TM was atop Z remember? His thighs were straddling Z.. no matter how high his 'bottom' was on Z's body(chest,stomach, or pelvis area) , that gun was pinned by either TM's thighs or calves..which would have not only blocked the gun, but squeezed the holster closed more making it that much more difficult for his hand to slide in it and grab the trigger/barrel.. but once again, I don't care about whether he touched the gun, Z's 1st statement didn't mention he touched it. me bringing it up again was just to show how many different scenarios there are besides yours and mine when it comes to whether the grip or the trigger could be reached..

anyway, back to what I was saying.

try it yourself.. have someone straddle you..and put their hand under a little lower than your armpit and squeeze that hand down..now reach for your gun on your waistband while its being squeezed in between your side and the persons straddling you thighs/calves..pull the gun out and fire it.. and never let go of their arm under your armpit.

that gun is pinned and your elbow doesn't bend that way..So how did Z's hand bend to get the gun out of a holster that was pinned to his side while pinning an arm under his pit.. all at the same time with the same arm? if your honest you'll admit Z's scenario couldn't have happened the way he said it did.

TM grabbing GZ gun could have happened, you've proven that to me.. but GZ couldn't have pulled his gun and shot TM if the events he described actually happened.

Okay, my hand reaches down, grabs the gun, pulls straight back turn my wrist and (actually did this with my wife and a watergun) she got wet. I was able to fire the gun without a problem. Right into her gut too.

 

[zappasguitar]

You came in here cheering about how this hurts his credibility. I simply point out that this doesn't hurt his credibility at all, I don't even know why they wasted time testing DNA on the gun. Seriously. It wasted their taxpayers' money and doesn't prove anything at all since there was no claim that Trayvon had hold of the gun.

"No claim Trayvon had hold of the gun..."

Riiiiiiiight.

“For a brief moment I had control of the wrist, but I knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist with his leg. He took his hand that was covering my nose and went for the gun, saying, “You’re gonna die now, motherf-----.’ Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear sight and the hammer.


That's a claim right there...

 

[ekg]

While I appreciate your detail, I think you should actually try to grab the gun. A person on top of someone that had the gun in such a holster is not going to have very good control if they attempt to grab the grip of the gun. If you were to grab that, your thumb would be on the inside of the pant and your hand would naturally slide in the crux between the grip and barrel... most of your hand will end up on the barrel as the gun is removed. If it is not removed, the rest of the hand would remain on the pant leg.

I did try it out actually.. I tried it with a 9mm and a waist-band holster.. not exactly like Z's but 'fabric' like his..the position produced my grabbing the grip and not sliding into the holster.. but maybe I was tainted in my opinion thus unintentionally producing the result I wanted to produce.

now, after USF snarked out his version, I tried it again.. with different results.. not totally the way you've (and he) described but enough to see that both of our conclusions are correct..because there are so many variables that make the same 'definitive' result each and every time an impossibility..since then I've tried it a cpl times and it really does depend on how much weight is on the gun.. not too mention all the other factors that should come into play when recreating this..

as i said to him .. thank you for showing me how it could work.. but I don't think it matters because Z's original story didn't say Z touched the gun so I don't see a blockbuster "He's lying" now that that there no proof of TM touching the gun.. in this single piece of information..

I have other problems with this whole thing...Namely,I'm having problems with the multiple stories Z has given.... and from his video version, the inability for a wrist/arm to even grab towards the back up on the waist while squeezing something under the armpit.. when you add in the gun being blocked between two bodies.. Z;s version of events get messier.. I expect some 'fudging' on his part.. He's trying to save his ass after just killing an unarmed kid.. he's going to see things differently, he's going to put spin on the night that caters to his innocence.. all that should be expected but for reason it's not.. and what he says is taken as gospel.. when it's proving to be other.

look... GZ shows where his gun was..

look at how the elbow has bends to reach that far around..

Now look at this..

now factor in TM straddling Z, his butt is on Z's stomach, his legs on each side of Z's ribs.. (this per Z)..it's impossible to reach back to the where the 1st photo shows the gun..while holding TM's arm under his pit.. while being straddled that way.. while TM is applying pressure to Z's face/nose with his other hand.. If Z twists his hip up to reach the gun, it's still impossible to keep the hand under the pit and the gun would have slid farther back on the waist since it was being held by TM's thighs/legs..any twisting to raise that hip, would have pushed the holster farther back..it wasn't 'belted' in place, it was on a clip that can slide... all of these factors make it this slanted version even more improbable...

ask yourself this... If TM was straddling Z, his butt on Z's chest, his legs on either side of Z's ribs..how did TM even see the gun that was located where Z says it was located?

also ask yourself.. after Z miraculously contorts his arm to pull the gun.. how did he then shoot TM in a way that the bullet went in a direct line, mid-chest, front to back..while being underneath TM.. and then when Z said he got on top of TM and pulled his arms out to the side, how was TM found face down with his hands underneath him?

see my point..? Z's story is going to slanted, that's a given... the concerning part is it's getting to be more than slanted, it's getting to implausible.

 

[Phantasmal]

You came in here cheering about how this hurts his credibility. I simply point out that this doesn't hurt his credibility at all, I don't even know why they wasted time testing DNA on the gun. Seriously. It wasted their taxpayers' money and doesn't prove anything at all since there was no claim that Trayvon had hold of the gun.

So now I will make a statement about it.
I simply made a comment about his credibility which is being damaged by the book and DNA evidence which is obviously an important point or why else would you test the gun. It hardly seems likely to me that if this kid was beating him, saw the gun, that he wouldn't try to grab it to keep from being shot at such close range
, as a jurist, this would cross my mind. There are a lot of holes in his story.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I have to reiterate again that I am totally flummoxed as to how anybody can have a fair trial with so much media speculation. I am really glad that we have the concept of sub judice in the UK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

 

[ekg]

Okay, my hand reaches down, grabs the gun, pulls straight back turn my wrist and (actually did this with my wife and a watergun) she got wet. I was able to fire the gun without a problem. Right into her gut too.

respectfully,

I believe you tried.. I do not believe you recreated the scenario correctly.. I've tried it 3 times with me on top and on bottom.. the knees on either side of the ribs prevent the wrist from getting to the area above the back pocket.. the knees also prevent Z being able to hold TM's hand with is armpit.. the whole position prevents the reaching for the gun and the holding of the arm at the same time..

he's not saying/showing that he reached over the legs.. he's reaching between them and his body..reaching towards his back hip/waist area.. while holding TM's arm in his with his pit.

I wish I had a more accurate pic..



Here's Z showing how he did it.

you can't do that from these positions..

 

[Phantasmal]

respectfully,

I believe you tried.. I do not believe you recreated the scenario correctly.. I've tried it 3 times with me on top and on bottom.. the knees on either side of the ribs prevent the wrist from getting to the area above the back pocket.. the knees also prevent Z being able to hold TM's hand with is armpit.. the whole position prevents the reaching for the gun and the holding of the arm at the same time..

he's not saying/showing that he reached over the legs.. he's reaching between them and his body..reaching towards his back hip/waist area.. while holding TM's arm in his with his pit.

I wish I had a more accurate pic..



Here's Z showing how he did it.

you can't do that from these positions..

Taking into account that the person on top isnt cooperating, they are fighting for their life!

At least I would. I would be trying to grab the guns! Fighting with every inch of my life to keep him from firing the gun.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't exactly know why you had to be a douche bag when you said all this, but I guess that's just the running theme now..

anyway, I did your test and you're right... but it's not conclusive since I am also right.. and probably 10 other people would be to.. since the positions of the gun,holster,angle of TM's hand,how tight the holster was, the angle of the grip.... etc.. would all bring different outcomes... so thank you for showing me how it could have happened, why you were a dick about it is beyond me though..add in that I said it's a moot point anyway, thus making the 'no DNA' on the gun hardly a reason to indict Z..and your snobbery becomes petty and weak... so what was it's purpose?

secondly, did you try my test while you were being such an ass in your reply to me? Ya know the one about putting a book or wrist brace slightly lower than your armpit.. squeezing it for your life because if you let go, the person may get your gun and kill you... and while squeezing, reaching towards up towards your waist and towards your backpocket/hip area?

it's impossible to do.. your wrist and elbow don't bend that way.. you would have to let go of whatever it is you're squeezing under you arm. If you're honest then you'll concede this... but I won't hold my breath since you're first reply to a neutral and [intended to be] helpful post was to be an asshat because of your uncompromising ideology can't bear anything that isn't in exact line with your thoughts.

while giving your theory a shot...there's something else you need to consider. something you forgot to notice.... you've got to add someone straddling your hips. TM was atop Z remember? His thighs were straddling Z.. no matter how high his 'bottom' was on Z's body(chest,stomach, or pelvis area) , that gun was pinned by either TM's thighs or calves..which would have not only blocked the gun, but squeezed the holster closed more making it that much more difficult for his hand to slide in it and grab the trigger/barrel.. but once again, I don't care about whether he touched the gun, Z's 1st statement didn't mention he touched it. me bringing it up again was just to show how many different scenarios there are besides yours and mine when it comes to whether the grip or the trigger could be reached..

anyway, back to what I was saying.

try it yourself.. have someone straddle you..and put their hand under a little lower than your armpit and squeeze that hand down..now reach for your gun on your waistband while its being squeezed in between your side and the persons straddling you thighs/calves..pull the gun out and fire it.. and never let go of their arm under your armpit.

that gun is pinned and your elbow doesn't bend that way..So how did Z's hand bend to get the gun out of a holster that was pinned to his side while pinning an arm under his pit.. all at the same time with the same arm? if your honest you'll admit Z's scenario couldn't have happened the way he said it did.

TM grabbing GZ gun could have happened, you've proven that to me.. but GZ couldn't have pulled his gun and shot TM if the events he described actually happened.

And of course you're not being a douche or a dick in all of your suppositions about "how does that work" or "how did he do that".

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Okay, my hand reaches down, grabs the gun, pulls straight back turn my wrist and (actually did this with my wife and a watergun) she got wet. I was able to fire the gun without a problem. Right into her gut too.

OH - NOW; you're just being a douche and a dick.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have to reiterate again that I am totally flummoxed as to how anybody can have a fair trial with so much media speculation. I am really glad that we have the concept of sub judice in the UK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

The "Pro-Martin" side have already reached their conclusion and they really don't need or care for any more information.
Since they have proclaimed him guilty, there must be no need for a trial by Judge and Jury; because they have already declared themselves as being all that's needed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Damo, I didn't say anything about the gun. There are many aspects of his story he has changed. I went and viewed the Hannity interview, I did a comparison with his story to the police. There are many details that are different. Zimmerman should not have done the Gannity interview, either. The guy has made some bad decisions.

I think it's high time that we mere citizens were afforded our own version of the 'Garrity' rule.

http://www.njlawman.com/Garrity.htm

By invoking the Garrity rule, the officer is invoking his or her right against self incrimination. Any statements made after invoking Garrity, may only be used for department investigation purposes and not for criminal prosecution purposes. The Garrity Rule stems from the court case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which was decided in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court. It was a traffic ticket fixing case of all things.

Officers were advised that they had to answer questions subjecting them to criminal prosecution or lose their jobs. The Court held that this was Unconstitutional.

 

[Southern Tea]

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Forensic tests made public Wednesday show that George Zimmerman's was the only DNA that could be identified on the grip of the gun used to fatally shoot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The results rule out Martin's DNA from being on the gun's grip. Zimmerman's DNA also was identified on the gun's holster, but no determination could be made as to whether Martin's DNA was on the gun's holster, according to the report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.


Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for fatally shooting Martin during a confrontation in a gated community in Sanford in February.
Zimmerman is pleading not guilty, claiming self-defense. A delay in Zimmerman's arrest led to nationwide protests.


The question of whose DNA is on the gun and holster could play a role in Zimmerman's defense. Zimmerman says Martin had been on top of him, slamming his head against the ground and smothering his mouth and nose with his hand and arm when he grabbed his gun from a holster on his waist waist before Martin could get it. He shot the teenager once in the chest.

___
Associated Press writers Kyle Hightower in Orlando and Terry Spencer in Miami contributed to this report.





[h=2][/h]




http://news.yahoo.com/tests-only-identify-zimmermans-dna-handgun-145033119.html

Looks like the police have a racist in custody.....

 

[ekg]

And of course you're not being a douche or a dick in all of your suppositions about "how does that work" or "how did he do that".

actually, the only one I've been even remotely douchey to was you.. and frankly, after your ass-ish reply to me you deserved it.

and if asking questions in a non-threatening or attacking way makes someone a dick in your book, then maybe you should meditate on that and try to re-invent yourself into a less jaded and cynical person. You read my 1st post to SF with your own douchieness attached to it and figured you'd just attack me since I didn't agree with your POV.. Ironically, you had the chance to answer true and honest "How" questions and alter someone's opinion.. a very very rare thing on a message board such as this where minds are made up and encased in concrete 99.99%, but you chose to be a dick about it instead..

yes, I have questions.. yes I ask them.. because sometimes I can't see "how" it's done..or "why" it happened that way.. so I ask.

But don't worry, I didn't let your attitude taint my learning.. As I said, you were right.. your point, while made being a douchebag, was valid.

OH - NOW; you're just being a douche and a dick.

no he's not..he's just disagreeing, as I, respectfully, am with him... but you still are being a dick and a douche.. How odd that even when someone alters their opinions and agrees with you, you still feel the need to attack them and be a dick about it..

what must your life be like to react this way..

 

[ekg]

I have to reiterate again that I am totally flummoxed as to how anybody can have a fair trial with so much media speculation. I am really glad that we have the concept of sub judice in the UK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

The minute this became an HLN, Nancy Grace special it became the equivalent of a football game.. now each side hopes for a win. Justice is rarely 'served' in these cases..

and while I find your way attractive.. I'm a needy American who wants to know all I can about whatever subject I'm interested. LOL.

well,except for Kate's boobs.. I have 'royal' envy (for the historical aspect of it) but I still thought that was out of bounds and TMI..

 

[USFREEDOM911]

actually, the only one I've been even remotely douchey to was you.. and frankly, after your ass-ish reply to me you deserved it.

and if asking questions in a non-threatening or attacking way makes someone a dick in your book, then maybe you should meditate on that and try to re-invent yourself into a less jaded and cynical person. You read my 1st post to SF with your own douchieness attached to it and figured you'd just attack me since I didn't agree with your POV.. Ironically, you had the chance to answer true and honest "How" questions and alter someone's opinion.. a very very rare thing on a message board such as this where minds are made up and encased in concrete 99.99%, but you chose to be a dick about it instead..

yes, I have questions.. yes I ask them.. because sometimes I can't see "how" it's done..or "why" it happened that way.. so I ask.

But don't worry, I didn't let your attitude taint my learning.. As I said, you were right.. your point, while made being a douchebag, was valid.





no he's not..he's just disagreeing, as I, respectfully, am with him... but you still are being a dick and a douche.. How odd that even when someone alters their opinions and agrees with you, you still feel the need to attack them and be a dick about it..

what must your life be like to react this way..

Well; you could always stick one of your thumbs your ass and the other in your mouth and MEDITATE on how often you feel the need to switch them.

I also don't seem to you questioning Martin's behavior or thought process, so it's obvious that you are firmly imbeded in the side that KNOW Zimmerman is guilty.

 

[zappasguitar]

Well; you could always stick one of your thumbs your ass and the other in your mouth and MEDITATE on how often you feel the need to switch them.

I also don't seem to you questioning Martin's behavior or thought process, so it's obvious that you are firmly imbeded in the side that KNOW Zimmerman is guilty.

"I also don't seem to you questioning Martin's behavior..."

????????

You want to try that one more time? This time in English?

 

[ekg]

Well; you could always stick one of your thumbs your ass and the other in your mouth and MEDITATE on how often you feel the need to switch them.

wow.. intelligence just oozes right out of you doesn't it?

I also don't seem to you questioning Martin's behavior or thought process, so it's obvious that you are firmly imbeded in the side that KNOW Zimmerman is guilty.

assuming you mean "I don't see you questioning TM behavior or thought process"... I actually did bring up his reaction.. At one point Z said,after being confronted by TM, that he reached into his pocket to get the cell phone he was talking to police on..without knowing who this person was, why couldn't TM have felt Z was reaching for a gun.. He did have a gun, so any 'feeling' TM would have gotten from that initial encounter would have been justified....he really was facing an 'armed' stranger who as following him in a car, now out on the grounds,'reaching for' something in his pocket..

It's when you or anyone would then says "So.. " that it really shows how it's "obvious that you are firmly imbeded in the side" of your football team.. most honest (to use your word) people would concede Z's actions and behaviors were also at fault that night..that had he done this that or the other.. he wouldn't be in this predicament and an unarmed teen wouldn't be dead...


hell if you don't think what Z did would be disconcerting... find a cop and follow him, let him see you following him.. when he parks, get out of your car.. walk up to him and 'reach' into your pocket.. and if he doesn't flinch, you win..

if he shoots.. then I guess we'll have a new football game to comment on...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If it had been WinterBorn "guarding" the neighborhood instead of Zimmerman, would Trayvon have died?