General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZimmerman's injuries were insignificant - he LIED
Witness on the stand now described Zimmerman's injuries as 'insignificant, not life threatening'. When asked if the scratches on the back of his head were consistent with having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete, she said NO. They were consistent with perhaps a single contact with the concrete, but not multiple slams. If his head had been repeatedly slammed into the concrete, the injuries would have been much more serious.
This means Zimmerman LIED about what happened that night, among the many other lies that he told.
I don't remember who this particular witness is, I believe she's the current medical examiner for Duval county.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Hooray for Pepe
(30 posts)"Analysts were mostly unimpressed with a medical examiner's testimony that Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-george-zimmerman-how-is-state-doing-20130702,0,773264.post
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)POW! I hope they find his ass guilty.
madaboutharry
(40,216 posts)The injuries are so minor, yet he is turning himself into a human pretzel trying to make a few scrapes look like injuries received in a life and death fight.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)Just to play Devil's advocate, though, a person does not have to sustain life-threatening injuries to claim self-defense. Only that they reasonably believed they were in danger of life or great bodily harm.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Only that a reasonable person would believe they were in danger of life or great bodily harm.
That's the law.
aquart
(69,014 posts)No blood. Bent my glasses. No real damage. BUT THE THOUGHT RAN THROUGH MY HEAD, "He's trying to kill me."
So I did what I had never done in a mugging, I fought. And won.
So, while I believe Zimmerman is entirely culpable and deserves to rot both in prison and in Hell, be careful the way you apply "reasonable."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)followed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman may have felt he was a good guy, a volunteer cop. But he wore no uniform, had no appearance of authority or rectitude other than his gun and his pride. Even if he did not land the first blow, the minute he turned to find out where Trayvon Martin was knowing full well that he had a gun on him, he may have difficulty persuading the jury that his claimed fear was reasonable.
You never know with a jury, but it is precisely this point that makes me think that Zimmerman could be convicted of murder 2.
This case is making me wonder whether we could reduce gun violence in our country by passing laws, state by state, that provide that any person shooting another with a gun outside of the shooter's home is guilty of murder 2, not manslaughter.
People would think twice about carrying guns. Already, if you commit a crime while armed, your penalties very often go up. Armed robbery is more severely punished than robbery, for example.
I think that anyone who shoots another person, whatever the reason, if he is not on his property, should face a tougher sentence.
The exceptions would, of course, be law enforcement and security guards who have gone through security checks.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)however, the point in this case is that he kept saying that Trayvon was repeatedly "slamming" his head into the sidewalk. This person's testimony directly contradicted this.
Also, interesting development today: prosecution wants to introduce the fact he was taking all kinds of law related courses because he wanted to be a cop. One of them specifically had to do with stand your ground and claiming self-defense. So, he knows how to create a storyline that fits with the defined law on self-defense, something I had not thought of. I'll bet he's claiming his head was repeatedly "slammed" into the concrete as part of crafting his story to fit the needed self-defense plea.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Z claimed that he had never heard of SYG in an interview w/Hannity which they presented in court today. Tomorrow's expected introduction of the info you are referring to will presumably reveal yet another inconsistency/lie.
aquart
(69,014 posts)And then lied his head off.
What gets me is how exactly crafted his story is. Did he prepare it in advance or after his head was addled with all that concrete contact?
Trayvon Martin stood his ground and tried to fight off his attacker. I would be happy to hang the POS who murdered him.
demwing
(16,916 posts)It doesn't have to be life threatening, but "insignificant" doesn't even come close to meeting the requirement.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It rests on what a reasonable person would think.
demwing
(16,916 posts)though now that I compare your post to kudzu22's, I have to say I don't see why you posted at all. your post matched the original, point for point.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's not what the defendant is thinking. It's what a reasonable person is thinking.
I can't shoot you because you slapped me and i think that's going to lead to you killing me.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)The have to demonstrate that their was reasonable cause for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in imminent danger. Two very different things.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
onenote
(42,724 posts)The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)onenote
(42,724 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)You assumed that the poster to whom you addressed
your quip is a "Zimmerman worshipper" and therefore
you added sarcastic snark, intended to insult, to your
post.
Is that your answer?
I'm asking what value it adds, in your view,
to throw out an insult, for no good reason.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)hired by the defense to make it look like an ass whoopin'. The jury will be left with something in the middle, maybe three or four blows. O'Mara planted that idea in their heads when he cross-examined today.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)He's won an awful lot of the skirmishes so far. He's got his own can of what he thinks will be whup-ass when it's his turn to present his witnesses.
Besides, he landed a punch on her when he got her to admit she was a political appointee of the state attorney, who is overseeing the prosecution of the Zimmerman case. We'll see if the prosecutor can find something to hang on O'Mara's "expert".
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)But that's the only thing that's gone the prosecution's way 100%. Besides, in the jury room, you have her testimony (someone who wasn't there) versus that of eyewitness John Good, who saw multiple blows. Add O'Mara's "expert" to the mix, and the jury will conclude that there might well have been a feeling on the part of GZ that drawing his weapon was his only chance to survive in the heat of the moment.
O'Mara's summation is going to do everything possible to have each one of those six women imagining that she is being sat on, and beaten to a pulp by a scary black man. It's the last thing they'll hear before they enter deliberations. He'll serve it up with gusto.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)arguments in a criminal trial. The sequence goes:
Prosecution closing
Defense closing
Prosecution rebuttal of defense's closing, should they feel it necessary
There is no way the prosecution will not do a rebuttal.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)then the next to the last thing. And the prosecutor's rebuttal will have to be very, very careful in telling the jurors that they have no right to be scared. It doesn't play well with the fairer sex.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)How Does a Jury Decide the Issue of Self-Defense in Florida?
In determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to the defendant at the time of the incident. This inquiry into what a “reasonable person” would have done is known as an “objective standard.”
Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)There must be some standard there, but it sounds like the defense has to present some evidence. So Zimmerman has to take the stand? What else does he have to reach the point "any?"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)His attorneys can think the statements he makes will suffice.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)how does the law judge the value
of a defendent not testifying?
stranger81
(2,345 posts)from the defendant's failure to testify. In my experience as a trial lawyer, though, they often do.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Can the prosecution make any reference to the
defendant not being willing to testify?
stranger81
(2,345 posts)No, prosecutor is not supposed to comment on defendant's decision not to testify.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The defense is deprived of the ability to cross-examine Zimmerman if those statements are accepted in lieu of Zimmerman's personal testimony. I'm surprised that those statements were admitted.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of self defense, enough to throw that burden to the prosecution.
[link:http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf|
Murray v. Florida:
Defendant has to do something to get the crucial additional facts into evidence.
In the Murray case, it was that the roommate brought the knife into their fight.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)THAT.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)from those who support Zimmerman no matter what flimsy evidence or inconsistencies are presented.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He would have stayed in his truck and waited for the police.
He would not have wandered around all by himself in the dark, rainy night with a gun to see where his "suspect" was.
That was not reasonable.
We are responsible for ourselves. We should not go out and play hero and ask for trouble. That is what Zimmerman did.
Zimmerman has a lot going for him, but this is the issue that is going to cause trouble for him if anything does.
And his injuries were minor. They do not match his story.
Starting from the facts but assuming that Zimmerman did have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm, once Zimmerman set out, gun on his person, to see where Trayvon Martin had gone, the reasonable thing to do upon meeting up with Martin would be to take out his gun and make a misguided citizen's arrest (and he had probably thought that scenario through a million times).
Whereupon Trayvon Martin would be terrified and scream and try to get help and necessarily attack and be shot very quickly.
Does that sound like a reasonable scenario?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)backed away and indicated he was unarmed.
but IF Trayvon punched him/knocked him down,
I can see him (Zim) going for his weapon as
soon as he is on the ground.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)throw him off his guard. Would that be consistent with the injuries?
If Trayvon was leaning forward to rush Zimmerman, could he have fallen into Zimmerman and caused Zimmerman to fall on his back and injure his head and hip? That could also explain the blow to Zimmerman's nose. What do you think.
Wow! Trayvon Martin did play football.
Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html
But the jury will not be able to speculate on that.
I do not expect a conviction on murder 2, but I do think that Zimmerman should be at least convicted on negligent homicide or manslaughter, perhaps aggravated manslaughter.
Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman followed Martin. Saying he was looking for an address is just a way of saying he followed Martin. Zimmerman should not walk. As a grandmother, I do not want to see men like Zimmerman on the streets. I want my grandchildren to be safe.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I think even if it is involuntary manslaughter,
if the victim is under 18 and was killed with
a firearm, it's a major jail sentence.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is what scares me as a grandmother.
I wonder if other women on the jury will feel as I do.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i don't have any children, but i have nieces and nephews. i can't help but think about them when i think about poor trayvon martin...and his murderer.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I wish for her the power of persuasion.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)a father....
What does this say about society's view of the value of a black man? Very little.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Instigated the aggression. Self defense cant be used when the defendant is the aggressor.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Even if the defendant is the aggressor, if the other party escalates the fight to the point where the defendant had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, self-defense on the part of the defendant is justifiable.
demwing
(16,916 posts)You could easily argue that the person escalating the aggression is the aggressor, without regard to who started the fight.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In any case the defense does not need to show that Martin was the aggressor. The prosecution will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justifiable self-defense.
demwing
(16,916 posts)they just have to provide a "preponderance of the evidence" that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
How do you expect them to do that? On its face, one cannot claim to be acting in self defense when one is the aggressor. Not logically, and not legally.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The defense must show that it might have been justifiable self-defense and, if the defense does that, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's behavior was not justifiable self-defense. That's how it works in Florida.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)onenote
(42,724 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Take an insanity defense as an example. You can't just claim insanity, you have to prove it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The burden of production is on the defense (they must claim self-defense and provide some evidence of self-defense) but not the burden of persuasion (once the defense puts self-defense on the table by providing some evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's behavior was not self-defense).
demwing
(16,916 posts)as a prima facie case. According to Black's Law:
http://livingfreeandclear.com/downloads/files/Black'sLaw4th.pdf (page 1354)
In an Insanity plea, the burden is solely on the defense, and Insanity must be proven through "Clear and Convincing Evidence".
(1)?AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—All persons are presumed to be sane. It is an affirmative defense to a criminal prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant was insane. Insanity is established when:
(a)?The defendant had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect; and
(b)?Because of this condition, the defendant:
1.?Did not know what he or she was doing or its consequences; or
2.?Although the defendant knew what he or she was doing and its consequences, the defendant did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong.
Mental infirmity, disease, or defect does not constitute a defense of insanity except as provided in this subsection.
(2)?BURDEN OF PROOF.—The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/775.027
Regardless, the statement to which I responded ("Defense doesn't ever have to prove anything"
was incorrect.Vattel
(9,289 posts)My point was that you were incorrect to think that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence standard that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense. You are correct that the defense must make a prima facie case that the defendant's behavior was justifiable defense. But that is not the same as proving that it was or even showing that the preponderance of the evidence favors the conclusion that it was.
demwing
(16,916 posts)"or even showing that the preponderance of the evidence standard that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense" - That is debatable.
There is no clear definition in Florida for "Preponderance of the Evidence." It is the lowest standard, and can mean whatever the jury determines it to mean.
One clear and convincing defense witness against 5 vague prosecution witnesses could carry the preponderance of the evidence, if the jury is convinced. The same can be said for prima facie evidence.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)is even lower than a preponderance of the evidence standard. Notice what a Florida appeals court says in Montijo (2011):
“No, he (the defendant claiming self-defense) did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.”
demwing
(16,916 posts)Is up to the jury to validate, but there are specific instances where there is a burden of proof assigned to the defense.
To say the defense never has to prove anything ever is incorrect, whether you're talking criminal or civil trials.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Sometimes the defense has the burden of persuasion, as in your example of the insanity defense in Florida. In self-defense cases in Florida, however, the defense doesn't really have to prove anything. They have to make a prima facie case that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense. This means that they have to introduce "facts" (even disputed claims will do) that, by themselves, and without even considering evidence on the other side, make it reasonable to think that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense. The relevant standard cannot be the preponderance of evidence standard because applying that standard requires weighing evidence for and against and a prima facie case does not need to even address any evidence on the other side.
demwing
(16,916 posts)the terms "burden of persuasion" and "burden of proof" are interchangeable. The burden of proof in an insanity case is on the defense. Just as we all are given the assumption of innocence, we all are also given an assumption of sanity, till facts are presented proving otherwise.
To say the defense team doesn't have to prove anything is technically factual, but not the literal truth. If, in fulfilling the burden of production required to establish a prima facie case of self defense, the defense team does not "prove" the validity of the claim in the mind of the jury, then the prosecution will have a much simpler task in creating reasonable doubt. In fact, if the defense doesn't sufficiently establish self defense, then reasonable doubt already exists in the mind of the juror before the prosecution says a single word.
We won't find that in any law-books, it's just human nature.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I take it that you agree with me that the burden of proof in a self-defense case is on the prosecution: once the defense meets its burden of production (which it clearly can meet in the Zimmerman case), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's behavior was not justifiable self-defense under the law. You say that if the defense team does not "prove" the claim of self-defense in the mind of the jury, then "the prosecution will have a much simpler task in creating reasonable doubt." No doubt that is true, but the prosecution needs to do a lot more than create reasonable doubt about the self-defense claim. It needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim is false.
demwing
(16,916 posts)you assume this is true, and seem to be advocating on behalf of the defense team.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)would draw the same conclusion about the burden of production. Not every reasonable person will agree about whether Zimmerman should be acquitted. I myself think there is loads of reasonable doubt and so (barring some surprising new evidence) he should be acquitted.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Sure, maybe Zimmerman could have made a self defense claim without asserting that Martin slammed his head multiple times into concrete. But he didn't. He claimed that Martin DID repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head. Zimmerman's story is simply not credible, on this point and many others. For people to argue, "Well, maybe it didn't happen the way Zimmerman claims, but maybe the actual truth is on Zimmerman's side anyway," is ridiculous. If the truth were on his side, he wouldn't have had to lie.
yardwork
(61,678 posts)His head was not slammed 20 or 30 times on the concrete sidewalk, as he claimed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Please proceed, governor.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The altercation or the number of times Zimmerman's head hit the sidewalk?
I would find it hard to believe that a jury would dismiss the entirety of his claim for misstating the number of times his head hit the sidewalk if, in fact, his head were being pounded into the sidewalk.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)He refused it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Again, to claim self defense the person has to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. The person does not need to suffer serious injury before acting. All the defense has to do is show the photos to the jurors and ask them if they think have those injuries inflicted upon them would lead them to believe they were in danger of death or serious injury.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And no defendant should go down the road of pissing off the jurors.
We will know just how well his strategy of continually lying works out when we get their verdict.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the injuries were sustained.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Unfortunate position of stating that his head was banged into a hard surface some thirty times, and even early on into the investigation, the police were a bit confounded by his statement.
If the defendant did have his head banged into concrete repeatedly, how come he was not in worse shape? They tried to get him to retract his statement, showing him actual photos of what a person looks like after they have had their head slammed into a hard surface repeatedly, but Zimmerman would not retract his statement.
So Mr Z is either another Clark Kent, with a a bionic head, or lying.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If it is established that Martin had the upper-hand in the confrontation and Zimmerman had a reasonable fear then the count is irrelevant as to whether it was 1, 10 or 100. You cannot conjecture a conviction.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)his head was bashed repeatedly on concrete.
Wouldn't a reasonable person--a person who had been physically assaulted, killed someone in "self defense"--seek medical attention for what he described as "repeated bashing" of his head? Wouldn't he need to submit the medical report as evidence?
Can you at least attempt to be reasonable?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)because the injury wasn't that severe, which means there was no resonable fear of imminent death. his story continues to unravel.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)They are part and parcel.
The witness today testified in no unequivocal terms that the injuries to Zimmerman's head were not consistent with his story of having his head bashed repeatedly into a concrete sidewalk.
Based on which statement to believe, Zimmerman claims his head was bashed into the sidewalk anywhere from a dozen to 30 times. Today's witness testified that such a scenario was highly unlikely.
Now, keep in mind that the Defendant has to show that in order to justify deadly force in self-defense, he had to have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
True, you don't actually have to sustain life threatening injuries to argue a reasonable belief your life was in danger. For example, if you have a knife to your throat.
Or, I don't know, you have a gun to your head.
Of course, Trayvon Martin didn't have a knife on him that night. And he didn't have a gun on him either.
But what the defense said during its opening arguments was that "Trayvon was armed with a deadly weapon that night. The concrete sidewalk."
Except now the argument that the concrete sidewalk was used as a deadly weapon now appears to be seriously in doubt.
So to answer your question, yes. 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Did this witness explain how those injuries were sustained?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Ordinary self-defense is different than use of deadly force in self-defense.
If a guy hits you in the face, you don't have to stand there and let him hit you. You have a right to hit back.
However, that doesn't automatically give you a right to shoot him.
There's two different statutory standards between ordinary self defense and use of deadly force in self-defense.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Florida law does not require a duty to retreat and, if Martin was in fact on top of Zimmerman, then retreat was impossible regardless.
Title XLVI. Crimes.
Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
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.
From there the defense need only show the photos and ask the ladies of the jury (who set the reasonable standard based on their own reasoning) if having that done to them would leave them fearing death or serious bodily injury.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I'm not necessarily discounting that Trayvon may have been on top of the fight at some point.
But there's no witness that places Trayvon continuously on top from start to finish except Zimmerman. Even John Good only saw a brief glimpse of the fight. And other witnesses believe they saw Zimmerman on top at some point.
Where's the reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm for Zimmerman?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Your speculation is immaterial and seems hard to overcome the witness testimony and the fact that Zimmerman sustained numerous injuries from an altercation and Martin did not.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)That's it.
One witness testified he believed it was Zimmerman on the bottom, and he did not see the entire fight, nor did he see Zimmerman's head being bashed into concrete. Other witnesses said they saw Zimmerman on top.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As for Mr. Good's testimony -- it does nothing to impeach the defense's account and, it seems, corroborates the contention that Zimmerman was being dominated. So far the DA hasn't suggested Zimmerman broke free of Martin.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)John Good witnessed just a small part of the confrontation and did not have a sufficient vantage point to confirm most of what Zimmerman claims.
And you keep on saying that quantity and severity of injuries is immaterial. But something would have to create an reasonable fear of life threatening injuries.
It wasn't a gun. It wasn't a knife. And according to today's witness, it wasn't a concrete sidewalk.
So pray tell, what was it if it wasn't any of those things?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That says absolutely nothing about how Zimmerman was legally obligated to perceive his situation at the time it occurred. Again, severity is immaterial. The jury may well decide that having your head repeatedly bashed could instill a fear of death or serious bodily injury in a reasonable and prudent person.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I just want to get your exact opinion on that question.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Pillows are fairly not threatening, can be kinda fun at times -- but nobody wants one held over their mouth and nose for extended periods of time.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)....just saying for the sake of argument, mind you, what would be the reason that Zimmerman would have to have a reasonable fear of suffering a life threatening injury?
From the facts of the case to which you are aware, of course.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm not sure of your larger point.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Martin was shot through the heart.
Poor Zimmerman and his insignificant scrapes and bruises..
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)Stop deliberately missing the point. Zimmerman lied. His injuries are completely inconsistent with his version of events. Therefore his self defense claim lacks credibility. Zimmerman is tied to the story he gave. It's preposterous for you and others to start inventing new stories that might work better for him.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)was hitting him and/or bashing his head on the ground. How does the severity of injuries, or lack thereof, refute that claim? Even superficial injuries can be sustained in that manner. The defense will show the photos to the jurors and say, "If you were on your back with an attacker straddling you and they were attacking you in such a way as to inflict these sort of injuries would you, under such circumstances, fear that you might be killed or suffer serious bodily injury?"
The prosecution cannot have the judge instruct the jury to consider the severity, or lack thereof, of the injuries.
Nine
(1,741 posts)There's no "and/or." Zimmerman claimed Martin bashed Zimmerman's head against concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman did not have the injuries one would sustain from having that happen. Not even close. So Zimmerman lied. You are positing a hypothetical that is not based in fact when you ask, "Couldn't Zimmerman have been in fear for his life when Martin was bashing his head against the concrete even though Zimmerman did not sustain life-threatening injuries from it?"
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people to agree to convict.
Zimmerman went into the fight armed and itching to show himself a hero. That's the way I see it. He is absolutely guilty of murder 2. And as a grandmother of a little boy, I do not want to see a man like Zimmerman out on the street ready to kill again.
Likelihood of a conviction, however, very low.
Remember what they always say: criminals have guns.
I would like to see the defense of self-defense abolished for shootings outside the home or off the property of the person shooting. If all shootings were automatically murder 2, people would choose to leave their guns at home and use them only when necessary. We would not need to register guns or restrict gun ownership.
That would take care of a lot of shootings, not just the ones in which someone gets killed.
After all, armed robbery is more severely punished than plain robbery.
All shootings should have aggravated sentences, and the claim of self-defense for a killing should not be accepted.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and once more for emphasis: why. did. he. lie?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)THAT lie.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Are you faulting him for an imprecise count of the number of times he might have been struck?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Potato, Potato.
What's the difference?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)However, the evidence admitted thus far says the number was greater than zero. At least 1 for each observable injury and an assumption might be reasonably made for additional blows that left no noticeable injuries.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)events before the parties even directly encountered each other.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Really?
frylock
(34,825 posts)brush
(53,801 posts)As far as your question about an imprecise count:
Anyone who believes that you just get up and walk away from having your head "repeatedly bashed" onto concrete like zimmerman claimed is either naive, stupid, in denial, or their judgment is clouded by their biases.
Human heads + repeated concrete bashing (imprecise or precise count) = concussion, cracked skull, much blood, semi-consciousness, or being knocked totally the fuck out.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, just gets up from that with nothing but a couple of small scratches (note: there was no blood even found on the sidewalk where zimmy said this allegedly happened).
zimmerman is a lying sack of you know what who thinks people are stupid to believe such crapola.
And remember, zimmy has a history of #1. lying in actual court to a judge about his finances; #2. an arrest in a bar where he punched an undercover cop; #3. restraining order by a girlfriend battered by zimmy in a domestic violence incident; #4 geting fired from a job for manhandling a woman at a party where he was hired as security. A co-worker who saw the incident said that zimmerman has Jeckel/Hyde temper. None of that is admissible but he clearly has a history of confronting or attacking others - particularly weaker opponents. And he was the one taking martial arts training at the local gym, not Martin.
EVERYTHING points to GZ attacking TM, and lying about it to cover his ass because he'd just murdered and unarmed teen.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The injuries are in evidence. The DA is not even close to suggesting the injuries were self-inflicted.
brush
(53,801 posts)Concrete is extremely hard and does not give at all.
Repeated BASHINGS of someone's head on it would cause very serious injury.
I capitalized BASHINGS (zimmerman's own word) because bashing means:
"1. To strike with a heavy, crushing blow. 2. To beat or assault severely."
That's directly from a the dictionary.
Please come back from that world of denial you seem to live in.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)brush
(53,801 posts)zimmerman is lying about having his head repeatedly bashed against concrete,
No one but the most gullible among us are naive enough to believe that.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)brush
(53,801 posts)I'm saying he lied about having his head "repeatedly bashed against the concrete."
Why did he lie?
frylock
(34,825 posts)the medical examiner stated that they were superficial wounds, covered by a Band-Aid, and that they were caused by perhaps ONE hit against the concrete.
now that I've answered your question, perhaps you can answer mine? you know that the difference between 1 and 20 is 19, correct? knowing this, why are you willing to give GZ leeway in his depiction of the encounter? 19 is a pretty significant discrepancy, wouldn't you say?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm not sure why an ME is examining a live patient but whatevs.
The fact remains Zimmerman had injuries inflicted upon him and the ME has no way of knowing how many blows preceded the physical injury or how many followed. All that is required is for Zimmerman to claim self-defense is a reasonable fear. The reasonableness of that fear will be determined by the jury who will, more than likely, be asked to imagine themselves sustaining injuries similar to those in the photos and whether or not enduring such treatment would leave them fearful of death or serious bodily injury.
frylock
(34,825 posts)that's your argument?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FL 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE
State: Florida
Florida Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases
FL 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE
[NOTE: This instruction is currently under review by the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases because of recent legislation or case law: See Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010)]
Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.
Read in all cases.
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of non-deadly force.
Definition.
“Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
In defense of person. § 776.012, Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.
(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) if the following two facts are proved:
1. (Defendant) must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend [himself] [herself] [another] against (victim’s) imminent use of unlawful force against the [defendant] [another person].
2. The use of unlawful force by (victim) must have appeared to (defendant) to be ready to take place.
In defense of property. § 776.031, Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.
(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) if the following three facts are proved:
1. (Victim) must have been trespassing or otherwise wrongfully interfering with land or personal property.
2. The land or personal property must have lawfully been in (defendant’s) possession, or in the possession of a member of [his] [her] immediate family or household, or in the possession of some person whose property [he] [she] was under a legal duty to protect.
3. (Defendant) must have reasonably believed that [his] [her] use of force was necessary to prevent or terminate (victim’s) wrongful behavior.
No duty to retreat (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable.
If the defendant is in [his] [her] [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] [he] [she] is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) has [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [has removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
No duty to retreat (location other than dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity.
There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Definitions.
As used with regard to self defense,
“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.
Give in all cases.
A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where [he] [she] has a right to be.
Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
The use of non-deadly force is not justified if you find:
Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a (applicable forcible felony).
Define applicable forcible felony.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using non-deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
Give the following instruction if applicable.
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] [another], but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.
Read in all cases.
In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.
If, in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of non-deadly force, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Non-Deadly Force?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FLJI 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
State: Florida
Florida Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases
FLJI 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
[NOTE: This instruction is currently under review by the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases because of recent legislation or case law: See Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010)]
Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.
Read in all cases.
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
Definition.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:
1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].
Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.
Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
Force in resisting a law enforcement officer § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
Give if applicable.
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] (or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.
Read in all cases.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.
Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat.
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.
Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:
a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
c. the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further an unlawful activity; or
d. the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person using the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.,
§ 776.013(4), Fla. Stat.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Definitions. Give if applicable. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.
As used with regard to self defense:
“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Prior threats. Give if applicable.
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.
Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
LiberalFighter
(51,005 posts)has trouble assimilating the facts.
frylock
(34,825 posts)i'll refrain from attributing what is that I believe makes them argue so vehemently in the defendant's favor.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)zimmerman's brother 
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)brush
(53,801 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You demanding the jury decide a case on a number you imposed without any other than a personal desire for the count to be 1. It also seems highly implausible that the count could only be 1 based on what has been seen in the photos.
And, as has been ignored by you before -- the number of blows a person need sustain to plead self-defense is not 20 or even 1, it can be ZERO. But obviously it is not zero. So now the question before the jury is -- if you were taking the sort of treatment Zimmerman did when he sustained these injuries would you be afraid you might die or suffer serious bodily injury? There will be no mitigating for getting severity of the injuries. The prosecution will not be able to insert the fictitious number "1."
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)HE LIED. It's really that simple.
You can justify all you want, but Zimmermn lied.
Where his story has changed from day one. The media can not even show that with all there access to all the testimony and all the interviews plus the police reports. The one detective Serrano? i believe his name was. He admitted in court he did not believe zimmerman but that his story has not changed and he could not find any facts to refute his claim of self defense.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You just know they're faking it, don't you. Those dirty, dirty girls and their rape fantasies they use to kill people for fun.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)That guy ^^^
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)then it follows that any woman who uses a gun in self-defense has faked the circumstances in which she claims she was required to defend herself and simply killed someone in cold blood.
Hoyt makes no distinctions for self-defense, period. He claims repeatedly that to kill in self-defense is to abrogate due process. his is an absolutist position.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)yardwork
(61,678 posts)Don't you get it? If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman it's over.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)whether or not Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. Keeping an exact count of the number of times he was struck or the extent of his injuries will not be material to that question.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)About whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear than how the altercation actually happened. There's a HUGE difference between having your head indeed on the cement 20 or more times vs. getting hit once or twice.
And it's also possible that if the jury thinks Z lied about the head banging, they may not believe any of is story.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)has as much right to fear for their life as someone having their head bashed 20 times.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)
that they can take the credibility of Zimmerman's recorded statements into account during their deliberations. Very doubtful the jury will have to judge the veracity of any actual testimony by him as Zimmerman is unlikely to take the stand due to his lies to the court about his finances and his passport.
Determining credibility of evidence is a common jury instruction.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
Rex
(65,616 posts)I think he buried himself with his lies long ago, the trial is just a foregone conclusion imo.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Zimmerman's multiple calls to police over "imagined crimes and suspicious incidents" to the police and his armed stalking prove that he's anything but "reasonable".
Zimmerman is a paranoid psycho with a Barney Fife complex. A VERY dangerous combo when a gun is involved!
Armed Zimmerman types are tragic accidents ready to happen.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)if he reasonably believed that he was in danger of his life, why didn't he run when he saw Trayvon approach him from behind a bush (his version of the story)?
If he reasonably believed that he was in danger of his life, why did he follow Trayvon to get his address in the first place?
How could he have reasonably believed that he was in danger of his life when he had his gun and he knew that Trayvon had tried to run from him?
At what point did he begin to reasonably believe that he was in danger of his life? After he followed Trayvon? As soon as he saw Trayvon? Only after the confrontation with Trayvon which he claims that Trayvon initiated (after Zimmerman followed Trayvon)?
What is reasonable is a subjective judgment by the jury. So it all depends on the jury's opinion and judgment of the situation.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I wish the prosecution would hammer down on the fact that without Zimmerman causing the altercation, he would never have feared for his life. This prosecution team makes me nervous, at this point the defense just has to stand up and say " Ditto".
The prosecution has presented reasonable doubt in the way they are presenting the case.
But....I'm not even sure you even have to be injured at all, in order to feel you life is threatened.
If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin, they both would be complaining about the heat and humidity today, instead of one homicide victim buried and the other on trial. that's Zimmerman's fault, not Martin.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)IIRC they didn't want to prosecute GZ at all.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Today we've seen a medical expert testify that Zimmerman's head wounds weren't life threatening.
It looks as though they are going to show that Zimmerman lied about not know about SYG laws.
I *believe* the fingerprint witness just testified that Trayvon's fingerprint wasn't on the gun, which lends us to believe he wasn't actually grabbing for it.
They laid out all of Zimmerman's statements nice and neat.
And now they are going to show as many holes, logical flaws and inconsistencies in his stories as possible.
Your hair is not on fire. The sky is not falling.
LiberalFighter
(51,005 posts)Later on they need to tie everything together in a neat bow.
I think the prosecutor needs to hang Florida's SYG defense as not appropriate. And explain how anyone that has a grudge against any of the jurors could use SYG against them under the Zimmerman circumstances.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)He might have sustained a broken nose ( I haven't seen testimony whether that he had a broken nose or not) from a punch by Martin. I do put a lot of credence in testimony from an resident eye witness who claims she saw what logically must have been Zimmerman being on top of Martin at the time of the shot. Because the person straddling the other who was left unmoving on the ground, got up from the fatal shot, and walked around back and forth holding his head. That rather blows holes in Zimmermans claim that he was in a position of fearing for his life at that point. Perhaps while struggling with Martin he drew his gun at and Martin saw it or perhaps even struggled to take it away from Zimmerman. However there has been testimony that there was none of Martin fingerprints observed on the gun. Perhaps Zimmerman was, at that point, in fear for his life that Martin might secure the gun and turn it on Zimmerman, and quite likely Martin was in fear, on seeing the gun, Martin's fear of his own life and was struggling screaming for help at that point. Zimmerman ended the struggle by shooting Martin through the heart when, apparenty Zimmerman had the victim on the ground. Could Zimmerman have used some other means of resolving the situation other than killing his suspect? Yes. Anything other than killing his prey.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,005 posts)
zeeland
(247 posts)I wouldn't put it past him to have slammed his head himself.
I would be interested in knowing if the autopsy photosindicated
any contusions on Trayvon's face to account for Z's swollen nose.
Z could have slammed his head into Trayvon's face.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Trayvon falling on top of Zimmerman after being shot that slammed Zimmerman's gun into his own face. The tiny two abrasions on the tip of his nose and the tiny one on the bridge of his nose toward the right up near his eye look like abrasions from something very solid and sharp like portions of a gun. I'm not seeing how those abrasions occurred from a punch unless Martin was wearing a ring, but if it was a ring I would expect more of an abrasion from a punch - more like a longer deeper cut.
From what I've read, the Kel Tec PF-9 that Z had has a powerful recoil and given the very short distance he would have had to have been holding the gun in relation to his own face I can totally see the gun recoil causing it to bash the gun and his hand holding it into his own face.
zeeland
(247 posts)Your theory is logical and makes perfect sense. I fear we won't hear anything close to it from the
Prosecution.
I believe Z was fantasizing about killing a supposed intruder and the hero worship that would follow.
I believe Trayvon's murder was premeditated to a degree. Trayvon's was the ideal victim
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)According to Rachel Jeantel, she heard Martin yell for Zimmerman to get off him during their struggle in the grass. I can imagine scratching, punching and doing whatever to break free of his attacker.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I mean it had to be, right? Zimmerman said so himself.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)"fucking punk" like Trayvon Martin?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Response to Scootaloo (Reply #30)
JimDandy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)enough to get medical treatment.
Go figure.
LiberalFighter
(51,005 posts)he had cement in his head so there wasn't any concern for concussions or other head injuries.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)terribly concerned. Who would any perpetrator rather have rooting for them. Zimmerson's dream come true.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I have my suspicions as to why.
Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (2)
A number of us here have been saying just the opposite.
This is from an earlier post of mine:
Anyone who believes that you just get up and walk away from having your head "repeatedly bashed" onto concrete like zimmerman claimed is either naive, stupid, in denial, or their judgment is clouded by their biases.
Human heads + repeated concrete bashing (imprecise or precise count) = concussion, cracked skull, much blood, semi-consciousness, or being knocked totally the fuck out.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, just gets up from that with nothing but a couple of small scratches (note: there was no blood even found on the sidewalk where zimmy said this allegedly happened).
zimmerman is a lying sack of you know what who thinks people are stupid to believe such crapola.
And remember, zimmy has a history of #1. lying in actual court to a judge about his finances; #2. an arrest in a bar where he punched an undercover cop; #3. restraining order by a girlfriend battered by zimmy in a domestic violence incident; #4 geting fired from a job for manhandling a woman at a party where he was hired as security. A co-worker who saw the incident said that zimmerman has a Jeckel/Hyde temper. None of that is admissible but he clearly has a history of confronting or attacking others - particularly weaker opponents. And he was the one taking martial arts training at the local gym, not Martin.
EVERYTHING points to GZ attacking TM, and lying about it to cover his ass because he'd just murdered an unarmed teen.
LiberalFighter
(51,005 posts)And his mind was clear and responsive.
Didn't feel I needed the sarcasm tag. Maybe I did.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)said that can't be corroborated? It's self-serving. And yes, I think it is possible he hurt himself on purpose to make it look like he was in a terrible struggle.
Even for a fight, he overreacted and used deadly force when it wasn't called for. He hasn't been fazed by killing a kid. Even the detective has commented on that.
JI7
(89,259 posts)he refused multiple times. it shows that HE KNEW the injuries were insignificant.
i think trayvon might have struck him when he got close to defend himself. and zimmerman pulled out the gun right after and that's when we heard Trayvon Screaming for help and Zimmerman shot him to shut him up.
i also think zimmerman probably shot him from a distance that's why there was no blood on him.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of scrapes, bruising or other damage on the hands of the dead young man....
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and smashed his head into the concrete, there must be some offensive wounds on Trayvon's hands--his knuckles if he broke Zimmerman's nose. Some kind of DNA under his fingernails. It's bullshit to believe that the rain washed everything away. The rain wouldn't wash bruises away.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The mortician said his hands were unmarked, IIRC. That doesn't marry with a tale about "Attacking Trayvon.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)That the severity of his two scratches did not support the repeated bashing of his head onto a sidewalk story.
I'm glad to hear that an expert testified to that today.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Including his own doctor, who saw him the day after.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)seemed to be much worse then having your head hit multiple times on concrete like Zimmerman. Good thing I am not on that jury for that alone.
brush
(53,801 posts)be worst than the alleged "repeated head bashings on concrete"? concrete is extemely hard and does not give at all. Seems much worst than hitting a head on a tree limb.
That's why most of us here believe zimmy is a lying sack of you know what.
RGR375
(107 posts)The injuries did not have to be life threatening. What the law requires is that the position somebody is in and the injuries being sustained if left to continue could have have led to loss of life or great bodily harm. Also that the person involved could have reasonable believed that such damage was a possibility. Read the law you do not not have to be half dead before you use deadly force. You just have to be put into a situation where if left to continue it could.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)....what was it?
Trayvon didn't have a knife.
Trayvon didn't have a gun.
He had what? Skittles? A soft drink? A cell phone?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I guess that doesn't apply in Florida. A FIST is the same force as a GUN? Apparently, in some states, like Florida, if somebody is punching you in the face in a fight, you can defend yoursself by shooting and killing them.
brush
(53,801 posts)allegation about having his head "repeatedly bashed against concrete".
Sounds made up to me since there was no blood found, no concussion, no semi-consciouness, or complete unconsciousness that such forceful acts would most likely cause.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Not merely believed, or feared, or thought.
The belief has to be reasonable, and that is left to the jurors to determine.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)If Zimmerman lied about the severity of his injuries, why should we believe him about how he received them and how he felt? Why should we believe him at all, since he's already been shown to be inconsistent and/or untruthful? The physical evidence can be explained away by the defense attorney, but how many pieces of physical evidence are we supposed to discard? At what point does a series of reasonable coincidences stop being coincidence and start being murder?
Finally, self-defense doesn't apply when you've instigated the altercation, which most reasonable people believe Zimmerman did. He may or may not have thrown the first punch, but the moment he decided to chase a kid while carrying his gun he committed manslaughter, even of he didn't pull the trigger for another few minutes.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)with his injuries.
libodem
(19,288 posts)He did scream like a little girl the whole time he was in hot pursuit. His weapon concealed in his waist band, yelling help, help me, aaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhh, help, I'm so scared to be chasing down a 'suspect' , I don't want to cuz I'm a chicken but I'm compelled by a force beyond my control.
Notice how Zimmerman, allegedly screams and pleads for his own life with Travon sitting on his stomach, but he still gets his gun out of his waistband, while yelling, and then aims, shoots Travon through the heart, as he is being headbanged and hands held over his mouth and bloody nose, and and screams until he pulls the trigger, and Zims's own yelling and crying suddenly stop Travon says ya shot me, and falls on top of Zimmerman? Then Zimmerman crawls out from under him? Was he covered in Travon's cold blood? Was there a big blood stain on the sidewalk from this alledged head slamming incident?
Effing lying POS.
Rex
(65,616 posts)His lies are catching up to him and fast.
His story has stayed the same since day one. almost ALL of the prosecutions witnesses has supported the defense. People are getting confused on the use of deadly force. please reference my above post.
Rex
(65,616 posts)His story has changed a lot since the day he shot and killed the kid. This case will be decided by the jury and he will be found guilty. Sorry, nice try.
From all the testimony and police reports and interviews his story has remained consistent
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)However, I DO NOT think he's been truthful from the get go. His story may have stayed the same, but it does not mean it's the TRUTH.
BUT, most commentators giving their opinion on the case so far think he will walk. It disturbs me to no end, but it's what I hear from most who are giving their opinion. At least at this point in time. Also, many think prosecution will wrap soon.
It SUCKS! But it's God's will, you know!
libodem
(19,288 posts)For packing heat and being in fight club, Zimmerman, sure claims to have cried and screamed like a sissy crybaby wanker and he couldn't fight worth a shit. Pansy ass wimp of a wanna be cop. Very consistent personality profile. He thinks he's a cop, but he screams like a girl and gets the crap beaten out of him by a kid talking on his cell phone. He sure is a pathetic weakling. No wonder he called the cops 50 times reporting scawy thweatening people in his yard. So scawy. Poor widdle ZimZim.
His story is ridiculous. The photo of Travon, laying face down in the grass, look like he fell from standing or from his knees, not like someone crawled out from under him.
Kinda surprised, Zim, didn't insinuate attempted molestation. He is after all such a stupendous victim.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)is the what the lying murderer claimed trayvon said, which not so subtly implies that there was some legitimate reason for the coward zimmerman to "get" him.
"you're going to die tonight" "you got me" 
complete bullshit. as others have noted, these are lines from old gangster movies, not something a 17yo would say.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I hope he spends a lot of time in prison.
krawhitham
(4,645 posts)When there is a dead kid in the grass
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)It was bruised. Or at least that's what two doctors, including Zimmerman's own, have testified to.
More importantly, Zimmerman lied about how he received them and their severity, which casts serious doubts on the rest of his story. When that's added in with all the other holes, inconsistencies, and multiple story versions, Zimmerman's credibility takes a real hit.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)if they've bought zimmerman's tall tale, no amount og facts will sway them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Glad to see that now in court.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Anyone who isn't blind can see that everything about his story is full of holes
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)IS NOT THE QUESTION. Only GZ knows what really happened! He sustained injuries, he felt his life was in danger, I absolutely think he's lying his butt off, HOWEVER he's not being tried for lying!
He pursued him, NOT a crime in Florida, he's a wanna be cop, NOT a crime, he had a mind set & is a racist, NOT a crime. He's a vigilante racist, NOT a crime. He shot him, IS a crime but only if there's testimony that ANYONE can prove that GZ in fact "hunted" him down to kill him. GZ complied with everything the police asked of him, he didn't ask for a lawyer either.
GZ IS piece of S--t, for sure, but he's still claiming SELF-DEFENSE! Is there ANY witness who can positively say what actually happened?? Only this OAF who in fact said "it was God's will!"
IMO, the best anyone can hope for is perhaps jury nullification. Almost everyone who is connected with this case as a commentator, lawyers, legal eagles, court watchers etc. thinks he's gonna walk because LYING might be perjury, but he won't go to jail for it.
No matter how hard I wish or how many prayers might be said for Trayvon, here in Florida I just don't think they'll do what's REALLY NEEDED! Send this P.O.S. to jail.
Somebody please tell me how wrong I am because I really need to hear it! I'm more than outraged about this, I marched in "Justice For Trayvon" marches here in Florida, but I'm feeling really down and heartbroken about this right now. Legalize speaking SUCKS!
Help Me!!
RGR375
(107 posts)But i give you credit for intellectual honesty which is more than i can say for most people here. Depending on where the jury believes this whole mess started whether it was when zimmerman got out of his truck or when they met up. I can see honest people convicting on manslaughter or letting him walk on self defense. That is up to the jury and how they perceive the facts and interpret the law.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)because of ALL the lies and the fact that it does appear he pursued after being told "we don't need you to do that" the jury could have a heart and convict. My understanding is both carry the same sentence. This was posted by another here and I copied and posted his legal statement ar one of the GZ threads.
Fingers Crossed, he needs to pay by a conviction, and not a slap on his hand! He's really dangerous with his type of mind set.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)And since he lied, that means the rest of his testimony can be disregarded. As it should be.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)to be in fear for his life. Either way, he probably was in fear for his life, Martin WAS probably kicking his ass. Most people defend themselves when confronted, especially at night.
I wish they would hammer home the fact that the entire incident would never have transpired if Zimmerman hadn't gone looking for a confrontation, and put himself and Martin on a confrontational path.
There was no reason for this to happen, none. Martin was unjustifiably killed, and Zimmerman knowingly put them both in that situation.
However, the prosecution is offering up reasonable doubt every time they present a witness, not impressed so far with the case being made.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)but I don't think he's that smart.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)What seems insignificant after the fact might not seem so insignificant while someone is on top of you punching you.
demwing
(16,916 posts)or do you disagree with that as well?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)what was going through Zimmerman's mind when he received those injuries. I would think there is a good chance that he was afraid for his life.
