|
|
|
Palabra.Originally Posted by TahoeHorn
Well, Grove$#@!, you ready to start eating your words, some crow and a giant pile of (your own) $#@!?
Have we seen the medical report from Trayvon Martin yet, I mean, beyond the obvious BULLET HOLE IN THE CHEST/HEART EXPLOSION & DEATH thing, do we know the extent of his injuries? I am good with convicting Zimmerman right now for being a bitch and shooting a kid when he began losing the fight he started. But that's just me.
Kid, that's the problem that none of us will ever be able to put to rest. You're obviously convinced that GZ initiated a conflict, it became physical, GZ was losing and he decided to kill TM out of "vagina-like" fear of being beaten up.
You may be right. I don't think that's what happened though and I won't until there's evidence that leads me to believe that your interpretation of events is an accurate one.
I knew all along that once we knew that GZ's nose had actually been broken, that this would be the refuge of the "TM was just defending himself" crowd.
I don't believe we'll ever have conclusive evidence of what happened after GZ hung up his cell phone.
It's sad and pathetic that so many people are convinced to the point that they want a man convicted of Murder2 or even killed when they don't know exactly what happened.
Well, then Florida has successfully created a "Thunderdome" Law where the only innocent people in confrontations are those who kill their opponent and are able to tell the "truth" after they've hauled off the body of the dead guy. Sounds like a swell place to live to me.
The only story we are ever going to get is the one from Zimmerman and he has all the reason in the world to lie. Maybe you're right, maybe the truth really is somewhere in-between, but I will never get past the fact that if Zimmerman doesn't get out of his car to pursue a person he claimed had run on his emergency dispatcher call, that Trayvon Martin is still alive. Instead, we have a dead kid who's only crime as I see it was bringing skittles and tea to a gun fight. I wonder how many people in Florida will make that mistake again? Again, if Thunderdome is what Florida wants, then Thunderdome is what Florida will get.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...uries-h/nN6gs/
Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knucklesSANFORD, Fla. —
WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.
The information could support George Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.
The autopsy results come as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.
O’Mara wouldn't comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it's better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.
WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.
When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman's bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.
“It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.
The injury to Martin’s knuckle also fits with Zimmerman's story that before he shot and killed Martin, Martin had broken his nose and knocked him to the ground, slamming his head on the sidewalk.
But Sheaffer said there could be another explanation for Martin's knuckle injury.
“It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself,” Sheaffer said.
Zimmerman shot and killed the unarmed teenager almost three months ago after calling 911 to report the teenager was acting suspiciously.
Zimmerman said Martin threw the first punch and that he opened fire in self-defense after his screams for help went unanswered.
The FBI was not able to determine whether it was Zimmerman or Trayvon who could be heard crying out for help in 911 calls.
The defense is trying to decide what evidence it wants a judge to keep confidential before the media gets a chance to see it, but WFTV is being told that could happen in the next week or so.
In the meantime, there’s new information surfacing about Zimmerman.
ABC News said it has obtained Zimmerman's medical report from the day after the killing. According to ABC, the report shows Zimmerman had a broken nose and abrasions on the back of his head.
A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
meh. I stopped reading right there, first line of the article.
Last edited by LongIslandIceSIP; 05-16-2012 at 08:45 AM.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16353532
they slept they proofread.They prosecution says Martin was breaking no laws and was not disturbing anyone as he walked back to his father's girlfriend's home.
Injuries or not Zimmerman was going after Martin, Martin asked him why are you following me? also has a right to defend himself but a gun out weights fist and he's dead. a women recently in Florida got 20 yrs for firing a WARNING shot over the head of her abusive spouse yet people think Zimmerman should walk? wow
his? according to some people who analyzed this it's not Zimmerman screaming for helpZimmerman said Martin threw the first punch and that he opened fire in self-defense after his screams for help went unanswered.
Last edited by Bevoette; 05-16-2012 at 08:54 AM.
The inevitable is coming, and Florida should burn for it.
that's pretty reasonable. (in response to "meh. I stopped reading right there, first line of the article")
I wouldn't be surprised if the family Dr's report isn't admissible in court, you know cause he's prolly white and hates black people.
Facts are kind of hard to deal with at times.
Last edited by iamthepush; 05-16-2012 at 08:55 AM. Reason: for clarity
I would feel much better about the doctor's account if they had been a doctor at a hospital, you know, the place Zimmerman refused to go right after the fight in which he killed another human being. But hey, I guess killing people is just another day at the office for this neighborhood watch super commando.
If you're disgusted with the herd mentality, could it be because you're in a different herd?
*sigh*facepalm.jpg
Warning shot? People actually think that's a good idea?
Well we've all done a desk pop.
This "evidence" was invented by Crump, the attorney for TM's parents. He claimed in a press conference that TM's girlfriend reported hearing this while talking to TM on the phone just prior to the altercation. I've already posted info showing that the girl wasn't his girlfriend and wasn't even talking to TM on the phone at the time. In short, it's total bull$#@!.
Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is anagalous to employing one in self-defense?a women recently in Florida got 20 yrs for firing a WARNING shot over the head of her abusive spouse yet people think Zimmerman should walk?
EMS are trained not to talk to the press. Where else are they supposed to get the informantion?A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
meh. I stopped reading right there, first line of the article/
If nothing else, numbers has outed a great number of people in this thread that must be addicted to poo eating. Damn....what a fetish, oh, wait, whut??
The Zimmerman issue is, as a legal matter, very simple. Either Zimmerman was mounted and having his face pounded in by Martin or he was not. If he was, then the shooting is clean. If Zimmerman shot Martin without being legitimately in fear of great bodily harm or death then he has committed a crime. This has nothing to do with the "Stand your ground" law either; you can't retreat if you're pinned on the ground while getting your face turned into hamburger by the guy on top of you.
The only evidence that should be necessary for conviction is the 911 call. George Zimmerman obviously followed the kid, and he killed him right outside of his father's girlfriend's apartment. You can't just follow somebody onto their property and shoot them, whether you are taking an ass kicking or not.
Last edited by Lil' Fry McFly; 05-16-2012 at 11:43 AM.
it was a town house community. the scuffle went down in a common area. technically gz had more of a right to be there than tm.
But he could have retreated at any moment before that, assuming he was pummeled, that is why he should go to jail. As for the mexican slurs, I can't wait to read how a half-peruvian is just a mexican anyhow so he can't be racist.
GZ didn't have the right to go chase him down and confront him with a loaded gun! even the 911 operator said not to.
better than him being killed or beating the crap outta her again. she wanted him to "back off" when she was getting her keys to leave.
It says "family physician," not "family member" or "family friend." Most people probably see their physician once every year or two. It's a big stretch to think that a physician would fabricate a medical report, and risk prosecution for fabrication of evidence, not to mention professional discipline, just to help a run-of-the-mill patient in a lawsuit. Also, it does not seem out of the ordinary for Zimmerman to make an appointment with his personal doctor for treatment rather than some random doctor he's ever seen.
She should have just killed him, probably would have gotten off with no other witnesses.
How is that?
1) It's a public street/sidewalk, or at least one in a gated community in which Zimmerman lives. Zimmerman has as much right to be there as Martin did.
2) As a Florida CHL holder, Zimmerman had a right not only to be present on the street, but also to be present on the street with a loaded gun.
3) I know of no law restricting a civilian from "confronting" another civilian in this situation.
So please, explain why Zimmerman did not have a right to be on there with a loaded gun?
I said he didn't have a right to go after him and confront him TM was doing nothing wrong just walking.
IMO, that evil racist Zimmerman was smashing his skull into the hands of that poor, cherub like, wrapped in a blanket made from his dying mothers hoodie, 7 pound 3 ounce baby Trayvon.
I agree that he likely stopped pursuit, at that point. However, at the end of the call when he asks for police to call him for his current location it implies intent to move from where he was at the point. Given the situation, what other motivation would he have to move other than to relocate TM?
He also expresses his frustration in the 911 call that "these $#@!s always get away," which further drives home the theory that he intended to track the location for TM so he or police could confront him.
You cannot determine, based on the 911 call, if GZ planned on confronting TM himself or not. There would be nothing to support that claim. But you could reasonably assume that he did not stay put once the 911 call was finished.
Last edited by Nate The Great; 05-16-2012 at 01:06 PM.
IMO from reading those other cases, Zimmerman's injuries are not sufficient to support an escalation to deadly force, but Murder2 is looking pretty impossible, but I still think it is right in the wheelhouse of manslaughter.
If I kick your arse that's not (generally speaking) felony assault.
If, however, I kick your arse and when you go down (I won, you lost) I then sit on you and proceed to pummel your face into the dirt, That may be felony assault and if you're armed you're within your rights to shoot me at the point that felony line is crossed.
This is very situational. Whether Zimmerman confronted the teen is not material. The question at the bar is whether he was subject to a felony assault that rose to the level of authorizing the use of deadly force. If yes, then the shoot is good. If no, then it's manslaughter or some degree of homicide.
That's close to right, but not entirely. I think the case will turn on two issues:
1. If you start the fight, then you can't later claim that you were justified in using deadly force in self-defense. The rationale is to avoid situations where Person A goes up and punches Person B, waits till Person B gets "the upper hand" in the ensuing fight, and then Person A pulls a gun/knife and kills Person B. You can't do that. If the evidence shows that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with TM (and I strongly suspect this issue will be unresolved, and not proven), then self-defense is not a legally available defense.
2. If you're in a fight, you don't get to use deadly force because the other guy started it, or the other guy was really getting his licks in. You have to be in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death. From what I read of other Florida cases, that bar can be kinda high. I think this question is where Zimmerman is most at risk. Based on the evidence out there of his injuries as discussed immediately above, it's certainly possible that a jury says "hell, he was getting beaten all to hell and was getting his head cracked -- that's a reasonble fear." It's also possible that a jury will say "hey, a bruised head and a busted nose doesn't rise to "serious bodily injury -- that's just called 'losing a fight.'"
All the other issues, points of discussion, whether GZ followed TM or not, whether TM turned back or not . . . they may COLOR some of the evidence, but they aren't even close to dispositive.
The determinative jury questions are likely to be (1) did Zimmerman commit assault (an unlawful and unauthorized physical contact) of TM prior to the altercation? and (2) was Zimmerman reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury at the time he shot TM? That's pretty much it. Everything else is just window-dressing and persuasive as to a version of the story.
With the caveat that I haven't read the Florida cases drawing lines for reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, I point out that the jury need not find that a bruised head and broken nose amounts to "serious bodily injury." The presence of "reasonable fear of" in the element entitles the defendant to use deadly force to prevent a serious bodily injury from occurring -- i.e., before the serious bodily injury occurs. So, to reject the self-defense claim on the basis quoted above, the jury would actually need to find that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear of suffering a serious bodily injury, despite having already sustained a broken nose, cut head, and other injuries, and despite seeing no signs that TM was going to stop the violence on his own (as I am sure Zimmerman will testify).
Well I've been confronted time and again in public. If you know of some law that prohibits a person from confronting another person in public, please let me know.
Mikey, you're right -- I was just abbreviated in my explanation. But you correctly state both the standard, and the universe of facts that would be considered.
For example, I probably wouldn't have to show ANY physical injury to myself if I shot Mike Tyson and the evidence showed that he was running at me saying "I'm gonna beat your weak ass to death, Brisket!" I'd be in fear of serious bodily injury like a mofo, and it would damned sure be reasonable. I don't have to wait till Mike gets some licks in, particularly since the first lick would probably send my "I'm a lover, not a fighter" weak ass to the ground for good.
I haven't been following the thread, so for all I know everyone involved has a completely accurate understanding of the peculiar nature of Florida's Stand Your Ground law and why its weirdness has little to do with reasonable apprehension, etc., or any duty to retreat, but if not, I stumbled across this summary a while ago and figured I'd pass it along.
From http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...round-law.html
So what is truly distinctive about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law? It is this: while self-defense conventionally is just that -- a defense, to be raised at trial -- self-defense under the Florida law acts as an immunity from prosecution or even arrest. Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes provides that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." This odd provision means that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense cannot be tried, even though the highly fact-intensive question of whether the person acted in self-defense is usually hashed out at trial. The law thus creates a paradox: the State must make a highly complex factual determination before being permitted to avail itself of the forum necessary to make such a determination.
Not only that, Section 776.032 provides immunity from arrest unless the police have "probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." Again, the law creates a Catch-22: police cannot arrest the suspect unless they have probable cause, not just to believe there was a killing, but also that the killing was not in self-defense; and where, as is often the case, the defendant is the only living witness to the alleged crime, the police likely will not be able to form probable cause without interrogating the suspect.
The Trayvon Martin case demonstrates the flaws in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. But let's not lose focus over what exactly those defects are, and they are not in the decision to abrogate the common-law duty to retreat, over which reasonable people can disagree and have for decades. No, the defect in the law is in the odd provisions that grant immunity from prosecution and even arrest, preventing the machinery of criminal justice from resolving whether the self-defense claim is a valid one.
From what we know, (1) Martin disappeared around a corner. (2) Zim got out and followed and returned to the truck at 911's request. The key here is going to be if Martin doubled back and attacked Zim from behind.
Actually, that's not really determinative. It doesn't matter how the chess pieces got moved around the board. It only matters which one actually committed assault first. Yes, how and when they got moved may be persuasive as to a certain theory of when that assault occurred ("GZ was following because he wanted a fight," or "TM turned around because he wanted to kick his pursuer's ass"), but in any scenario of moving those chess pieces around, one can support a theory that either party was the aggressor. E.g., if TM doubled back, maybe he confronted GZ, and GZ flipped and put hsi hands on TM. OR, maybe TM doubled back to get the jump on GZ and he jumped him. The question thus isn't whether he doubled back - it all comes down to what exactly happened when they connected.
What bothers me about the whole thing. This situation is not any different if it happened 10, 20, 30 yrs ago. If I'm being assualted and fear of my life and kill the assualter. it goes to the DA or possible Grand Jury to decide if it was justified. This is the way it has always been handled. This case is being made like this is something new.
Last edited by irvingtwosmokes; 05-16-2012 at 02:31 PM.
That is the crux of the whole case, then threat of life. Everything else is distracting noise.if TM doubled back, maybe he confronted GZ, and GZ flipped and put hsi hands on TM. OR, maybe TM doubled back to get the jump on GZ and he jumped him.
Although I think we'll learn a lot more I think the chances of twelve jurors agreeing don't seem good. In the end there is still likely to be a lot of guessing about what really happened and different people will have different ideas of reasonable doubt or whatever.
I think that is very possible. In the end, it really will turn on the evidence. To establish a reasonable fear, I expect that TM will have to take the stand. He could come across as very credible, or he could totally flake -- either of which would make a verdict one way or the other more likely. Or, he could give just "iffy" testimony, making for some heated jury deliberations. We haven't seen the trial evidence yet, and we WON'T . . . until trial.
Normally I respect your legal expertise, but here ...
That would be awesome if there was a hologram of him in court
Goddamit.
Well . . . I bet Matlock could put him on the stand. That Matlock. He was really somethin'. He could even make a dead man talk.
I was reading a story about a distant relative the other day. He was at large man, 6'2, 300lbs in the 1890s (IIRC). He walked with a cane due to rheumatism. He was at a bar on the end drinking by himself. When a local $#@!face, who allegedly sold beef from stolen cattle, and was a known drunk who hung around ne'er do wells, started mouthing off. George ignored it. Jon went after him more, this time, taking his cane, and pushing him. George got ready. Jon attacked him again, George shot him in the chest. George was tried and found not guilty.
Moral of the story, don't $#@! with a George.
People with debilitations and the elderly typically get a large margin for self-defense - depending on how bad his rheumatism was.
If you change minor plot points like having you relative start following a kid who was minding his own business, then start a fight with that kid, lose the fight and then shoot and kill the kid for the crime of just minding his own business, then these two stories would be eerily similar. Cool story, bro.
Posting Permissions
Home ..
Advertise ..
ShaggyShop ..
PanchoChat
Football ..
Basketball ..
Baseball ..
Other Sports ..
RC Didn't Offer ..
Gamboool
Varsity ..
Hole in the Wall ..
PCL ..
Einstein's ..
Nasty's ..
GM Steakhouse ..
NSAA
Bada Bing ..
Can you help me with this? ..
Shagslist ..
Cloak Room ..
Classics ..
Bellmont
Reply With Quote
