Tests Show Only George Zimmerman’s DNA On Handgun

What does this mean for the case?

From The Associated Press

New evidence is being released in the George Zimmerman trial.

Forensic tests made public show that Zimmerman’s DNA was the only DNA that could be identified on the gun that killed 17-year-old, unarmed teenager 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.

Read more at The Associated Press

ACROSS THE WEB
  • dockilldare

    so am i to understand that in order to claim self defence you have to first give your weapon to he person trying to do you harm? that way their dna is on the weapon, do i have your ideals right? if so you are a fool. as zimmerman has claimed from the begining, martin went for his pistol while it was holsterd, at the same time he was fighting with zimmerman, there would be no dna on the weapon itself.note the story also claims they have not tested the holster..this story only proves zimmerman’s claims.
    zimmerman never said martin got the gun out and pointed it at him, he said martin tried to grab his weapon and failed.
    @ all the anti gun/ anti self defence people, are you aware of the 1981 supreme court ruling from the case warren v dc? that should be where you start your soul searcing. the scotus made it clear that no government official is required to protect you the individual. in other words your defence is your responsability not law enforcement’s. so now if you are smart as you claim to be, sit down be quiet and do some research.

    • http://twitter.com/entrepreneur78 Entepreneur Producti

      Are you serious, all the BS about gun law and protect yourself doesn’t matter. Police told him to back off and don’t follow. He did in result there is a dead child. You people are so racist you look past the fact this is a kid.

      • dockilldare

        no the police dispatcher told him that following was not nessesary. now i agree he should have backed off. as for martin being a kid, that kid was 18 yo and had been kicked out of school for drug possesion. now just a small detail here, i live in the next town from sanford fla and am in college just down the street from the shooting site. i know people from both sides. i dont think my girlfreind will agree that i am racisit. after all she is black and from sanford.
        im sorry you feel that your self defence is not YOUR responsability, but if you actually took the time to research warren v dc, you would learn that i am quite right. bottom line is that is the politcal issue that has been brought to light more than the killing itself. please look up that case and see what it says.

    • TryingToBeReasonable

      It’s his story against a deceased Black male. He can lie up a storm because Trayvon is not here to defend himself. Anyways, none of us know what happened so we really can’t take sides. I don’t know who attacked whom, but I do know that he did not have to kill him. He could have injured him to subdue him. I am pretty sure Zimmerman said Trayvon grabbed his gun not grabbed for his gun, but maybe I am wrong. If he said he grabbed his gun then that disproves his story because Trayvon’s DNA is not present. BTW they did test the holster and it has Z’s DNA on it, but they couldn’t determine whether or not T’s DNA was on it.