Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The night of the killing, one LEO wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but was overruled. On the police report, Trayvon Martin's
cause of death had 4 answers, the first being "homicide" and the last being "excessive force." It is not as cut and dried as you've assumed.
As for the head wounds to Zimmerman, the posters include at least 2 working nurses and a former nurse; the experience and knowledge brought to the discussion are valuable. Since Zimmerman's defense is that he was,
as his brother put it, beaten almost to the point that he'd be left in a diaper and spoonfed for the rest of his life, if the nature of those wounds isn't germane to the case, exactly what is?
Anytime someone dies at the hand of another it is a homicide. However this case ends up the word homicide will be in its final pronouncement. He is either not guilty because it is a justifiable homicide or he committed murder (homicide) in the 2nd degree.
I can find about a dozen nurses importantly doctors who would say something different. No disrespect to the medical personal commenting on here but to accept their word as gospel is foolish. There's is just another opinion, an informed one but just another one. They have no access to the medical records.
The wounds are not that germane because they don't fall into the scope of the law. The law is not what you feel it should it should be. The law is the law as written. The law does not say you can only use deadly force if you suffer a substantive injury it says you can use it if you feel that you are at risk of bodily harm or death. As one is getting their head bashed in they are not thinking, "Hmm should I strike back now or wait until I'm almost comatose".
He wasn't a very big kid in any stretch of the imagination, if his height and weight have been accurately reported. He was tall and lanky.
GZ was big for his size, if his height and weight have been reported accurately.
Your second suggestion is laughable.
Any boxer will tell you reach is extremely important don't discount a lanky tall kids. I know quite a few people who discounted them and ended up with big knots on their faces.
If he's hitting with blows and you don't know how to weave out of them he can inflict some serious damage.
5) lawyer at bond hearing said they had medical for nose
At this point, there is no question he was bashed, and it's derailing to continue on about it. It's incontrovertible that deadly head wounds can lack a visible mark. At any rate, the legal standard does not require actual deadly injuries but a reasonable fear they will happen. In short, Zimmerman has been vindicated with respect to the head injuries, whether you like it or not.
Please keep the convo to real, relevant issues. Like, what evidence you have that Zimmerman started the physical altercation.
How many different ways can it be said that you don't have ALL the evidence yet, and the issue of who was the aggressor is not resolved?
You don't have copies of statements of all witnesses interviewed,(there could be a witness who says Zimmerman was on top), you don't have a copy of the autopsy report, you don't have the medical report which you say Zimmerman submitted, and the state certainly has the right to have a qualified medical doctor examine that report and give his/her assessment of the seriousness of the injuries. There are contradictions in this case. Zimmerman's own attorney is not making the kinds of assertions you're making. Even he knows that he doesn't know what the evidence is UNTIL he reviews the evidence the State produces to him in discovery.
5) lawyer at bond hearing said they had medical for nose
At this point, there is no question he was bashed, and it's derailing to continue on about it. It's incontrovertible that deadly head wounds can lack a visible mark. At any rate, the legal standard does not require actual deadly injuries but a reasonable fear they will happen. In short, Zimmerman has been vindicated with respect to the head injuries, whether you like it or not.
Please keep the convo to real, relevant issues. Like, what evidence you have that Zimmerman started the physical altercation.
I believe the discussion regarding GZ's injuries is consistent with the opening topic/title of this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl
The judge in the Trayvon Martin case officially recused herself today. The next judge also passed on the case as Zimmerman's attorney is his child's godfather. So the case fell to Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr..
Also, Zimmerman's friend claims Zimmerman has graphic photos of his face showing his injuries:
If the part about the pictures is true, it will be yet another twist in this tragic case. I took a media ethics class in college that covered some real life events and the media coverage. I have a feeling this case will make it into the future text books for examination.
Any boxer will tell you reach is extremely important don't discount a lanky tall kids. I know quite a few people who discounted them and ended up with big knots on their faces.
If he's hitting with blows and you don't know how to weave out of them he can inflict some serious damage.
I'm sure a lanky kid can inflict blows. As can a short, stocky guy. But TM was not a big kid. He was a tall, thin kid. That was what I was responding to.
One thing I know for sure, a handgun trumps weight class in a fight.
If they want to prove some pre-set racism in this man despite him being a community organizer for blacks and tutoring black kids for free they would be confiscating his computer for a witch hunt at some point if not already.
I have never called Zimmerman a racist on this or any other thread about this case. Most of the so-called "race-baiting" is being done by the people cheering on George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin.
It's true that the media talked about race a lot, and they even tried to prove he used the words f*coon. However, that soon changed. My posts about the 911 call always said I didn't hear a racial slur. Racial profiling isn't necessarily racism. Actually, it is to a point, but we all do it. Even profiling people by age, the kind of car they drive and the clothes they're wearing is morally wrong, but we use these judgments as defense mechanisms to protect ourselves, which is understandable. I'd rather be alive and feel a little guilty about judging someone than be too politically correct and get robbed or worse. However, if I were safely in my car and saw someone walking who didn't seem to belong around here, I'd call the cops and wait.
However, it turned into a racial issue when the police and the state investigator told 2 grieving parents that their unarmed teenager, who was doing nothing but walking, was killed and they should just go home and forget about it. If you have children and one of them was killed, you would do everything in your power to find out what happened and why his killer was set free without an arrest.
Please explain how "we have no evidence as to who started it" could be true but "we have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman" could be false. If the state thinks Zimmerman is lying, it should have positive evidence contradicting him. It's technically possible that the state has evidence showing something Zimmerman said is inaccurate, but you still say the state said they dont know who started it. So the affidavit was false when it said he confronted Trayvon either way.
And as someone above pointed out, it doesn't matter that it was a bail hearing, it's still part of the record and the witness for the prosecution was still required to tell the whole truth on the stand. And as I pointed out earlier, the state was pushing hard at the bail hearing and would likey have used explosive evidence if it had it.
How could the a statement "we have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman" be false and the statement, "we don't know who started it," be true? Zimmerman has said a lot more than Trayvon attacked him, so simply saying that the State doesn't know who STARTED the fight is different from affirming everything Zimmerman said. Zimmerman was following Trayvon. He was the aggressor. Trayvon could have started the fight by striking the first blow out of fear and in SELF DEFENSE, which is different. If someone approaches you in a threatening manner, it's not unreasonable to fight to defend yourself. These types of details can be very significant.
I understand that the bail hearing is part of the record. However, the hearing had a purpose, and the state was not there trying to prove guilt, therefore, the types of questions asked and responses from the state. Witness are required to tell the truth but they are NOT required to volunteer information. They simply answer the question as asked. there's subtlety in that which is easy to miss.
He wasn't a very big kid in any stretch of the imagination, if his height and weight have been accurately reported. He was tall and lanky.
GZ was big for his size, if his height and weight have been reported accurately.
Your second suggestion is laughable.
He was a very tall lanky football playing person. Gave at least one hit to break a nose and later was smashing Zimmerman's head to the ground.
Second I don't know, I said maybe.
If he only struck to break the nose and then grabbed the head to bang and was trying to wrestle a gun away there might be no wounds outside of the gunshot wound.
How could the a statement "we have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman" be false and the statement, "we don't know who started it," be true? Zimmerman has said a lot more than Trayvon attacked him, so simply saying that the State doesn't know who STARTED the fight is different from who was the aggressor. Zimmerman was following Trayvon. He was the aggressor. Trayvon could have started the fight by striking the first blow out of fear and in SELF DEFENSE, which is different. If someone approaches you in a threatening manner, it's not unreasonable to fight to defend yourself. These types of details can be very significant.
I understand that the bail hearing is part of the record. However, the hearing had a purpose, and the state was not there trying to prove guilt, therefore, the types of questions asked and responses from the state. Witness are required to tell the truth but they are NOT required to volunteer information. They simply answer the question as asked. there's subtlety in that which is easy to miss.
Even if it is proven that GZ was the aggressor: by law he can be found Not Guilty or the case can be dismissed:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
