[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not that he "can't" per se. It appears his lawyer has some "concerns".

Damn. I'm good.

[OAW]

A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense.

Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond.

Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date.

Judge considers adjusting Zimmerman's bond - Yahoo! News

OAW

[subego]

Don't you only pay 10% or so of that? Haven't been charged with a felony myself.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not that he "can't" per se. It appears his lawyer has some "concerns".



Which seems odd to say the least. His attorney says he's going to open up a legal defense fund for Mr. Zimmerman. But Mr. Zimmerman already had a legal defense fund. Not sure what the difference is. Perhaps a true "legal defense fund" has stipulations on how the money is spent?

Personal Legal fund = Lawyer makes no money on it
One setup by the Lawyer = Lawyer makes money on it through fees and %'s off the top for managing it.

[OAW]

Found this today on a major news site ....

On April 5, 2012 Senator Chris Smith convened an independent Stand Your Ground Task Force, comprised of members drawn from law enforcement, state prosecutors, public and private defense attorneys, and other legal experts. This Task Force was charged with reviewing the current “Stand Your Ground” law found in Chapter 776 Florida Statutes and developing recommendations to improve the statute to increase public safety.
The Task Force began its work by hearing public testimony from various members of the community and identifying the problems which have arisen from the implementation of the Stand Your Ground statute. The committee discussed the issue at length and agreed that the statute is too broad and a significant, unnecessary, and dangerous departure from the traditional law of self-defense.

Key excerpts follow ....

Task Force Recommendations

1. Cases should be presented to a Grand Jury to allow for a cross section of Society to determine what a reasonable person would do in that case. Under current law, the State Attorney has this power already. Giving the defendant a right to have a grand jury indictment and appear (if he chooses) before the grand jury addresses a concern within the traditional framework of Anglo-American criminal procedure without raising the many problems associated with the out-of-whole-cloth solution of immunity. This right might help allay concerns of the "innocent" homeowner having to go through a full trial where a strong basis for a self-defense claim exists without all of the problems that attach to the immunity provision.

2. Educate the public and law enforcement. While not an amendment, educating the public and law enforcement about the law is critical. They should understand when the use of deadly force (and other force) is lawful and when it is not. As evidenced by the forum, the public and law enforcement often have various misconceptions about when the law applies and when it does not. They must understand that the law does not entitle a person to be a vigilante. Education can also assist in rehabilitating perception of Florida in the national media.

3. Create a system to track self-defense claims in Florida. Floridians need to know the actual effects of the law and how it is working across the state. A system to track the number of self-defense claims and the case outcomes would assist in doing so.

4. Amend the Imminent Requirement. Amend § 766.013(3) to include the requirement that the individual who stands his ground must “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent [imminent] death or great bodily harm.” The imminence requirement was maintained in § 766.012, but omitted from § 766.013(3).

5. Title Change. Retitle Florida Statue § 776.031 to state “Use of Force in Defense of Property” instead of “Use of Force in Defense of Others”. The provision speaks of what a person may do to protect themselves from a trespass or other interference with property so the title is misleading. Fla. Stat. § 776.012 currently includes a provision for the use of force to protect another so the title of § 776.031 is just erroneous.

6. Allow Detaining. Amend Florida Statute 776.032 to delete “arrest and detaining” from the definition of “criminal prosecution”.

Consensus Recommendations

1. Make Presumption Rebuttable. Create a provision that makes immunity provision inapplicable when the alleged attacker was unarmed or in the process of fleeing. In the alternative, create a rebuttable presumption that the suspect was not acting reasonably if they harm an alleged attacker who was unarmed or in the process of fleeing. Also provide concrete provisions for judges to use in determining who should and should not be immune from prosecution and require the matter to be heard by more than one judge. The burden for granting immunity is too undefined and judicial discretion is unfettered.

Dissenting Views

A. Judicial discretion is not undefined or unfettered. As in many areas, judges are required to make findings of fact. The law is very clear. We may disagree with a court’s finding of fact (generally one side in every dispute disagrees with the court’s findings of fact) but that doesn’t make it undefined or unfettered.

2. Remove the Presumptions. Remove the presumptions contained in Fla. Stat. § 776.013(1) or, in the alternative, make it clear that the presumptions are rebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption in this instance may be unconstitutional because it could be argued that the intent of the actor is a primary issue and, as such, is a question for the jury. See, Morrisette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246 (1952); State ex rel. Boyd v. Green, 355 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1978). Note that a Senate Report and one appellate court case have noted that the presumption is irrebuttable. See Fla. S. Comm. on Judiciary, CS for CS for SB 436 (2005) Staff Analysis 6 (Feb. 25, 2005), available at http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session...5s0436.ju.pdf; see also State v. Heckman, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D 2906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). I don't agree that this provision is unconstitutional.

Dissenting Views

A. The statute does not contain an irrebuttable presumption. Rather, it is a presumption that a person held a reasonable fear they were in imminent peril of death or bodily injury based upon the alleged victim having performed a forcible felony (burglary- forcibly entering a dwelling or conveyance or kidnapping- removing or attempting to remove a person from the home or car against their will). This is an appropriate presumption under these circumstances.

B. I don't believe the Morissette unconstitutionality argument applies here and would thus remove it as a rationale. Morissette and that line of cases bars conclusive/irrebuttable presumptions against the defendant (because they go against the defendant's presumption of innocence by not requiring the jury to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt). Under the SYG statute, on the other hand, the presumption actually is in favor of the defendant, and I can't recall seeing a case where the gov't/state was allowed to object to a presumption favorable to the defendant on constitutional grounds (and this is because the due process argument in Morissette is aimed at protecting a defendant's due process rights). That said, I think the core point is correct - that it should not be irrebuttable because the reasonableness should be an issue for the jury to decide, so either the presumption should be eliminated or it should at least be clarified that the presumption is rebuttable by the state ... but unless I'm missing something (and that is very possible), the unconstitutionality argument should not be a part of the argument because the real point is that either the statute is unclear that the presumption is rebuttable by the state, or if irrebuttable, then it effectively changes the definition of self defense to apply per se in the situations described in 776.013 even if the defendant had no reasonable fear of imminent harm (and while I disagree with that as a definition of self-defense, I don't think it raises a constitutional issue) ...

3. Eliminate the Presumption of Reasonable Fear. Eliminate § 776.013(3) presumption of reasonable fear, or in the alternative eliminate the word “reasonable,” so that the statute creates a presumption of subjective fear leaving the question of whether such fear was reasonable for the jury. In a wide range of cases and contexts, the question of whether the defendant’s perception and response were reasonable is a critical question for the jury to decide while weighing all of the evidence presented at trial. This section of the statute improperly but effectively converts a question of fact into a question of law. If the facts, however, tell a different story, i.e., a reasonable person would not have fear of death or great bodily harm under the circumstances, then the statute should not provide protection.

Dissenting Views

A. The presumption of fear should be removed or altered as it only applies if the victim is committing a forcible felony.

B. The word “reasonable” is a longstanding principal in criminal law that dates back since forever and clearly defined by case law. Moreover, even if the case goes to a jury trial, the defendant would be entitled to move for a judgment of acquittal before the case goes to a jury. In said instance, the facts are still being determined and applied by the judge not the jury. Although intent/state of mind is a question of fact (routinely for the jury), case law is clear that it still should not go to the jury unless the state has overcome the Defendant’s reasonable explanation of innocence, i.e. in good faith belief cases.

4. Define unlawful activity in section 776.013. The Legislature needs to make a decision on when a person is engaged in “unlawful activity.” One proposal could be to make it any activity in violation of Florida criminal law. Regardless of how it is defined, there needs to be some definition so that law enforcement, courts, and juries can determine whether the statute applies to certain individuals. Without some definition, some individuals may be protected by the law that the Legislature did not intend and vice-versa.

Dissenting Views

A. The term “unlawful activity” is clear: activity which is against the law.

B. This recommendation gives the mistaken impression that legislatures know best which is a proposition that I reject wholeheartedly. There is existing case law that addresses/attempts to define “unlawful activity” already. But it seems simple enough to me that unlawful activity is any activity that violates a criminal law whether it is state law or federal law.

5. Clarify the role of provocation. Although § 766.041 precludes the initial aggressor from availing himself of the defense of justification, § 766.013(3) applies to anyone not engaged in unlawful activity.

Dissenting Views

A. I do not agree that the statute allows an initial aggressor to avail himself of the justification defense given the clear language of F.S.776.041- Use of force by aggressor: “The justification described in the preceding section of this chapter is not available to a person who:...Law enforcement officers have very difficult jobs. They are required to make judgment calls every day. Sometimes, those calls are wrong. I don’t believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with this statute which makes it more or less likely that law enforcement will make the wrong call.

B. The role of provocation is not unclear. It is for the jury to decide if the defendant initially provoked the use of force (and provoked could certainly be racial taunting) unless the defendant then attempted to withdraw from the conflict or the victim responded with such violence that the defendant was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. We also “do not agree that the statute allows an initial aggressor to avail himself of the justification defense given the clear language of F.S.776.041- Use of force by aggressor: “The justification described in the preceding section of this chapter is not available to a person who:”

C. Section 776.041 makes clear that you are not allowed to claim the stand your ground law's protections if you are the aggressor (absent two exceptions), as that section provides: "The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself . . . ."

D. It is for the jury to decide if the defendant initially provoked the use of force (and provoked could certainly be racial taunting) unless the defendant then attempted to withdraw from the conflict or the victim responded with such violence that the defendant was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Discussion Item

Repeal. Repeal Fla. Stat. § 776.032 in its entirety to do away with immunity and the
procedural hurdles placed on law enforcement. Repealing this section will allow the Stand Your Ground law to operate as an affirmative defense established at trial, rather than apparatus that can halt an investigation at the outset. As written, the law causes confusion for law enforcement on when the police may arrest/detain a suspect who claims Stand Your Ground. Additionally, the law allows for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant has a low burden of proof to establish the defense and get complete immunity. Such a procedure undermines the role of the courts and the importance of trial by jury. Repealing this section would make the investigation and prosecution of Stand Your Ground cases just like any other case, i.e., a case that goes through the standard investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial process. Furthermore, this amendment would be a compromise - - removing much of the difficulty and confusion in enforcing the law by law enforcement while still maintaining the “stand your ground” aspect.

Dissenting Views

A. This section provides a protection for any person who finds themselves in a position of defending themselves. Without this section, many such persons, especially poor people who are predominantly minorities, will be forced to remain in custody with very high or no bonds for years awaiting trial. For example, most murder cases take 2-3 years to go through the trial process.

B. One of the task force members suggested removing the language in the immunity section (F.S. 776.032) which says “criminal prosecution” includes detaining in custody. I would not object to this as long as the detention was brief and solely for the purpose of investigation. However, I don’t think this change is necessary given (2) of this section which allows law enforcement to use “standard procedures for investigating use of force” since that would include detention. I also believe the standard for law enforcement is “probable cause” that a crime (not a justifiable act) has occurred- just as it in all other areas of criminal procedure. Frankly, I am not aware of any cases wherein reasonable fees or costs have been awarded under the immunity statute so I don’t know if this is an issue of concern.

C. I do not think that 776.032 should be repealed. Notwithstanding the above, I am in support of two minor amendments: 1) Allow the suspect to be detained for questioning. It is difficult to conduct an investigation if you cannot detain the suspect for questioning; and 2) Substitute the word “may” for “shall” in subsection two so that it reads law enforcement SHALL use standard procedures for investigation.

D. I am pretty sure that the concern addressed by immunity is that an average citizen can find himself or herself facing a homicide charge and the stress of trial and verdict when simply defending their home or family, and they should be spared having to go to trial where upfront we could know they were acting in self- defense. I personally have not seen the cases prior to SYG where prosecutors have pursued cases where there isn't a colorable argument that the defendant did not act in self-defense, but I know that the "common wisdom" behind the law's passage is that they did exist and "innocent" citizens were needlessly put through the ordeal of a trial. It seems that giving the defendant a right to have a grand jury indictment and appear (if he chooses) before the grand jury addresses this concern within the traditional framework of Anglo-American criminal procedure without raising the many problems associated with the out-of-whole-cloth solution of immunity. This right might help allay concerns of the "innocent" homeowner having to go through a full trial where a strong basis for a self- defense claim exists without all of the problems that attach to the immunity provision (a provision I have not seen in any other criminal statute I am aware of).

Stand Your Ground Task Force - Senator Chris Smith, Chairman

The recommendations seem reasonable to me. What say you?

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

More of Zimmerman's "character" is being revealed: Trayvon Martin shooter disparaged Mexicans on old Web page - Yahoo! News

[OAW]

It appears Mr. Zimmerman's story continues to unravel ....

George Zimmerman told investigators that while he was on the phone with a Sanford police dispatcher reporting Trayvon Martin as suspicious, the teenager was circling his vehicle on foot, a source familiar with the investigation told the Orlando Sentinel.

The source said Zimmerman's account of events hasn't changed in his several statements to police — in which he said he was so unnerved by the teen's behavior that he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher.

The details revealed by the source provide new insight into what Zimmerman said happened in the earliest moments of his contact with Trayvon. And they may reveal the inconsistencies alluded to by prosecutors in the case.

One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon.

The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said.

Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, and the two struggled over it.

Those portions of Zimmerman's account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said he hasn't yet seen his client's statements to police, and it would be inappropriate for him to address specific evidence in the case.

"It's hard for me to even comment on it," O'Mara said.

Sanford Spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern said the police department "cannot make any comments on anything related to the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case."

Reached in Birmingham, Ala., Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said Thursday that Zimmerman's claim that he was screaming in the 911 call and that his mouth was covered by the teen don't add up.

"[Trayvon's father] Tracy Martin told me that that's what [police] told him," Crump said, of Zimmerman making those statements to police.

"It's either one or the other, it can't be both," Crump said. "We have to put together this puzzle because, unfortunately, we don't have Trayvon Martin's version" of events.

A spokeswoman for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey declined to comment.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon in a Sanford gated community on Feb. 26. Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Critics say he is guilty of racial profiling and killing an innocent teenager.

George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin new details: Source says Zimmerman told police that Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him - Orlando Sentinel



OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It appears Mr. Zimmerman's story continues to unravel ....



George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin new details: Source says Zimmerman told police that Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him - Orlando Sentinel



OAW

Yeah. Zimmerman's story doesn't add up with the evidence and the phone calls.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah. Zimmerman's story doesn't add up with the evidence and the phone calls.

Exactly. It's like it never occurs to him that 911 calls are recorded! I mean I can halfway see him going there during the initial police interview. After all he had just shot a kid ... so he had to tell them something to portray himself as the "victim". Not a lot of time to get your story straight, right? But by the time he got to his bond hearing he'd had that kind of time as well as legal representation. Yet he had the audacity to get on the witness stand and say "I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."" to the kid's parents in his so-called "apology". When he'd already been recorded on the 911 call saying that Trayvon Martin was in his "late teens"!

All I know is this. When Mr. Zimmerman's very first public statement ... in court on the witness stand ... is a demonstrable falsehood? Not a good look George. Not a good look.

OAW

[mduell]

Judge Lester declined to seal the evidence, so it will be available to the media when the prosecution hands it over to the defense in the next week.

[Rumor]

I was a bit surprised by the 2nd degree charge as I thought manslaughter would have been easier to stick. Personally, I think Zimmerman is guilty from everything I have seen so far. However, I really don't want to this to become an issue about CCP. One bad apple ruins the whole box kind of thing is where this could go. Recently here in Berkeley, a guy beat an older man to death with a planter pot. So it isn't what is used to kill someone, but the person using the tool.

[andi*pandi]

Another warning shot case, again in Florida. Mom gets 20 years for firing a warning shot at husband who just threatened to strangle her.

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN.com

There's a lot wrong here (her shot could have gone through the wall and hit her kids, why didn't she take her kids with her) but 20 years? There are actual murderers out there who get less time.

Oh Florida.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Another warning shot case, again in Florida. Mom gets 20 years for firing a warning shot at husband who just threatened to strangle her.

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN.com

There's a lot wrong here (her shot could have gone through the wall and hit her kids, why didn't she take her kids with her) but 20 years? There are actual murderers out there who get less time.

Oh Florida.

I haven't followed this case, but I saw it mentioned at reddit and the top post was a devastating explanation about why this women got what she deserved. Marissa Alexander gets 20-year sentence for firing single bullet into ceiling to stop husband from physically attacking her. | msnbc : politics

Originally Posted by "top post from reddit thread

I've actually done some research on this case already. Let me fill in some of the holes and correct the misinformation here.

1. She wasn't isn't in trouble for simply firing a warning shot, she's in trouble because she used deadly force when it wasn't justified according to the law.

2. She did not fire the weapon into the kitchen ceiling! She was standing in the living room with her husband (and he was next to his 2 kids), she pointed the gun at his head and fired, the bullet barely missed his head, traveled through the wall and then into the ceiling the of the kitchen.

3. Her husband's testimony (the man she fired the gun at) was basically discounted because against the orders of the court they met up after she was arrested and discussed what he was going to say in her defense.

4. If you still think her husband is trustworthy, he told the police after the shooting that she threatened to shoot him in the past, and his children told the prosecutor that she was screaming at them during the incident, he then testified those were all lies.

5. After being arrested for shooting, she drove to his house (again she was not supposed to have any contact with him) and assaulted him and she was arrested again.

6. Her defense about using stand your ground doesn't work. When she fired the gun, he was not doing anything towards her. She had left the house, got the gun and came back, and he was in the process of leaving when she pointed the gun at him.

I think that says it all.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Judge Lester declined to seal the evidence, so it will be available to the media when the prosecution hands it over to the defense in the next week.

ABC News obtained the medical report.
George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) and SENI TIENABESO (@senijr_abc)
May 15, 2012

A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer 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.

Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26 shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.

Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman's trial -- including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman's questioning by police.

Zimmerman's three-page medical report is included in those documents that the defense could use as evidence.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's weird... how did the 2 black eyes evade visibility on film?

[The Final Dakar]

Or the lacerations on the back of the head. It's interesting, because it lends credence to Zimmerman's version of events. I don't think it's listed here, but I believe I read that they found bruises on Martin's knuckles, as well.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

ABC News obtained the medical report.
George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

That's right: he refused to be taken to the hospital after the event, then later went to a family physician.

Even if every word in the family doctor's report is true, all it might really mean is: Zimmerman started a fight with Martin, Martin successfully defended himself, Zimmerman shot Martin. If Zimmerman is the aggressor, it doesn't matter much if Martin got a few good jabs in.

EDIT: Besides, we heard about the alleged broken nose long ago, mduell mentioned it on page 5 of his thread.

Since it doesn't look like he has a broken nose, two black eyes, or head injuries in the police video, it is entirely possible the alleged injuries are not from the event with Martin.

For instance, after release from custody, Zimmerman goes home, his dad smacks him around for getting into legal trouble, Zimmerman goes to the doctor because his dad hit him in the nose. Likely? No, but it's possible the judge might rule the evidence inadmissible, since by refusing to be taken to the hospital by the cops, there's no way to know if the injuries are really from the fight with Martin or after being released from police custody.

Heck, he could have fallen on his face in the police station since he was walking around handcuffed and could have taken a tumble.

Refusing to go to the hospital could prove to be a very stupid move by Zimmerman. If the doctor's report isn't corroborated by police reports, it will likely be thrown out.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Or the lacerations on the back of the head. It's interesting, because it lends credence to Zimmerman's version of events. I don't think it's listed here, but I believe I read that they found bruises on Martin's knuckles, as well.

I thought I read that Martin had no injuries except a hole in his chest.

[The Final Dakar]

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles | www.wftv.com

Haven't had time to read the link, so keep the condescension to a minimum should it not play out as it was explained.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles | www.wftv.com

Haven't had time to read the link, so keep the condescension to a minimum should it not play out as it was explained.

No you're right. I was just telling you what I remember.

[OAW]

Zimmerman did not receive so much as a band-aid by the EMTs who responded to the scene. He was not hospitalized because his injuries did not warrant that type of medical attention. And clearly he had no black eyes on the police video. So medical records provide by a family physician the day after is questionable at best. But in any event, this is really all much ado about nothing. From the very beginning it has been clear that there was a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin. We have 911 tapes to indicate that. As I've said before ... you can't profile a kid, stalk him through the neighborhood, kid takes off running because he's scared of you following him, get out of the car and continue to follow him against 911 dispatcher instructions, confront the kid, pick a fight ... and then when the kid gets a few good licks in defending himself you want to pull a b*tch move and shoot him in the chest. Sorry dude ... that's not self-defense.

And even if you want to hang your hat on Zimmerman's story about Martin initiating the fight ... you have to weigh that in light of the following evidence. A) Trayvon Martin was running away from Zimmerman. Corroborated by Zimmerman's own words on the 911 tapes and his girlfriend on the phone. So how is he going to be scared enough to run away one second ... and then the next second he's attacking you? B) We already know that Zimmerman's first public statement on the witness stand about how old he thought Trayvon was is directly contradicted by his own words on the 911 tapes. So there is a credibility issue at play.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Didn't one of the officials on the scene corroborate that he had injuries? I forgot where I read that.

Edit:

Originally Posted by OAW 

Zimmerman did not receive so much as a band-aid by the EMTs who responded to the scene

err...

Originally Posted by OAW 

As I stated way back on page 1 ... the kid apparently got a few good licks in during his scuffle with Mr. Zimmerman. This is how he looked when the police and EMTs arrived at the scene ...



A couple of small cuts. No stitches. Not even a trip to the hospital. Just a quick clean up on the scene.

[lpkmckenna]

I don't see a band-aid in that photo. That's not even much blood; a nose bleed from walking into a door bleeds way more than that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't see a band-aid in that photo. That's not even much blood; a nose bleed from walking into a door bleeds way more than that.

Exactly. The EMTs cleaned up the blood and turned him over to the police. The cut didn't even warrant a band-aid ... as evidence by the police video that showed that he didn't have it or any other type of bandage on the cut when the brought him to the station. My point here is NOT that Zimmerman wasn't injured at all. That's never been my contention. The point is that his injuries were in no shape, form, or fashion "life threatening" as he claimed. This is some grade-schoolyard fistfight type of sh*t. Certainly nothing that warranted taking a kid's life. And the larger point is that you can't claim "self defense" after shooting a kid because he got a few good licks in during the fight that you initiated.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And the larger point is that you can't claim "self defense" after shooting a kid because he got a few good licks in during the fight that you initiated.

Yeah, I feel like Zimmerman defenders are eerily quiet on that point. Though they do argue whether or not what Zimmerman did constitutes stalking.

I'll be curious as to whether the Prosecution can positively establish that Zimmerman pursued Martin, because if the Defense has anything that shows Martin initiated the confrontation, Zimmerman walks (though I think he's likely to either way).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, I feel like Zimmerman defenders are eerily quiet on that point. Though they do argue whether or not what Zimmerman did constitutes stalking.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll be curious as to whether the Prosecution can positively establish that Zimmerman pursued Martin, because if the Defense has anything that shows Martin initiated the confrontation, Zimmerman walks (though I think he's likely to either way).

Well they have Zimmerman's own words on the 911 tapes when he answers affirmatively when the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin. We can clearly hear him exit his vehicle. As for Martin initiating the confrontation ... I'm sorry but that doesn't even pass the giggle test. Like I've said before ... he's hightailing it away from Zimmerman in fear one second, but the next second he all of a sudden forgot he was afraid and approached Zimmerman aggressively and sucker punched him? Yeah right.

OAW

[Snow-i]

It really doesn't matter how much Zimmerman bled or how severe his injuries were.. It corroborates his story that he was attacked by Martin.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It really doesn't matter how much Zimmerman bled or how severe his injuries were.. It corroborates his story that he was attacked by Martin.

No it does NOT "corroborate" that he was "attacked" by Martin. It corroborates the fact that he and Martin were in a physical conflict. Which we all knew from jump street. George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman could have "attacked" or tried to detain Martin and received those injuries when Martin retaliated in self-defense.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

This.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Not it does NOT "corroborate" that he was "attacked" by Martin. It corroborates the fact that he and Martin were in a physical conflict. Which we all knew from jump street. George "These assholes ... they always get away" Zimmerman could have "attacked" or tried to detain Martin and received those injuries when Martin retaliated in self-defense.

OAW

Could have, but you can't convict unless it can be proven that Zimmerman attacked first, to which there is no evidence.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Could have, but you can't convict unless it can be proven that Zimmerman attacked first, to which there is no evidence.

Exactly. Unless the prosecution has the biggest bomb shell to drop, reasonable doubt exists.

[OAW]

Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps - NY Times

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Exactly. Unless the prosecution has the biggest bomb shell to drop, reasonable doubt exists.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps - NY Times

OAW

Meager attempt to keep the story producing clickthroughs. None of the questions raised have anything to do with physical evidence, except about how it rained.

"some witness said this" isn't a sufficient citation.

"They didn't do enough canvasing" is subjective, and could be said about any case.

"The vehicle was not secured" The vehicle did not play a role in the alleged confrontation, just Zimmerman's action leading up to it - which are not under contention by either party.

"The police did not administer a sobriety test on Mr. Zimmerman." As far as I'm aware, administering one is not standard procedure unless the Police have some sort of reason to (i.e. he's acting in a way that suggests being under an influence).


Where in there is there anything that suggests Zimmerman murdered Trayvon? Pray tell.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It really doesn't matter how much Zimmerman bled or how severe his injuries were.. It corroborates his story that he was attacked by Martin.

The *only* thing it corroborates is that Zimmerman received these injuries at some point between the night Martin was killed and the time he went to his family doctor.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Exactly. Unless the prosecution has the biggest bomb shell to drop, reasonable doubt exists.

Reasonable doubt is the wrong standard here. Reasonable doubt would be relevant to the question of whether Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But that fact is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether Zimmerman has an affirmative defense for murder, and the standard for an affirmative defense is not (the inverse of) beyond a reasonable doubt, at minimum it's preponderance of the evidence, and might even require the defense to prove their story beyond a reasonable doubt. I refer to my post on page 4: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...4/#post4158158

[OldManMac]

Martin shot from Intermediate distance.

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows

Close range would indicate self defense, and/or a scuffle. I still believe Zimmerman murdered Martin.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Martin shot from Intermediate distance.

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows

Close range would indicate self defense, and/or a scuffle. I still believe Zimmerman murdered Martin.

I think that would qualify as a bombshell.... it doesn't give us much indication of how reliable the report's conclusion is, or how narrow "intermediate range" is, but if it stands up to scrutiny that would be pretty devastating for the defense as described.

[ebuddy]

That my friends, is Zimmerman's undoing. ^^ IMO, that proves to me and I suspect most others, that Zimmerman was pissed off because he obviously got bested by Trayvon in the ol' fisticuffs and while retreating decided; "On second thought, screw that little punk. He's going down."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think that would qualify as a bombshell.... it doesn't give us much indication of how reliable the report's conclusion is, or how narrow "intermediate range" is, but if it stands up to scrutiny that would be pretty devastating for the defense as described.

IIUC, "intermediate range" is close enough the target to leave powder burns/residue, but far enough the powder has had time to disperse (it looks like speckles).

It's between "near-contact" which means the powder hasn't dispersed and lands in a (more or less) single spot, and "distant" which has no powder residue.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That my friends, is Zimmerman's undoing. ^^ IMO, that proves to me and I suspect most others, that Zimmerman was pissed off because he obviously got bested by Trayvon in the ol' fisticuffs and while retreating decided; "On second thought, screw that little punk. He's going down."

Indeed. I said earlier that if Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the sidewalk when he was shot in "self-defense" as alleged ... then Zimmerman would have some of his blood on his clothing. But to date we see no evidence of that. If you are far enough away to shoot an unarmed person and not get their blood on you then you weren't in any imminent danger since you are the one with the gun! And as I also indicates earlier, it will be quite interesting to see the angle of the bullet wound. Did Zimmerman shoot upward ... which eould be consistent with his story of being on the ground getting his head slammed into the sidewalk? Or did he shoot horizontally or in a downward trajectory? Which would be consistent with him going out like a b*tch and pulling a gun cause he was losing a fist fight?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Reasonable doubt is the wrong standard here. Reasonable doubt would be relevant to the question of whether Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But that fact is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether Zimmerman has an affirmative defense for murder, and the standard for an affirmative defense is not (the inverse of) beyond a reasonable doubt, at minimum it's preponderance of the evidence, and might even require the defense to prove their story beyond a reasonable doubt. I refer to my post on page 4: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...4/#post4158158

Interesting, thanks. The way people have portrayed Stand Your Ground, I was under the impression playing that card gave you an affirmative defense that the prosecution had to then disprove.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Interesting, thanks. The way people have portrayed Stand Your Ground, I was under the impression playing that card gave you an affirmative defense that the prosecution had to then disprove.

Well that's certainly another interpretation, and it's up to the judges of cases like this one (and the appeals to this one) to determine which interpretation gains traction. I don't see any merit in that interpretation, neither in the legislation, in the intent of its writer, in the interests of justice, in the logistics of enforcement, nor in the simple rules of logic and the meaning of words in the English language. But that's not to say that Florida will agree with me

I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that there's another perfectly reasonable scenario where Zimmerman can hold a grasp on reasonable doubt (about his reason for shooting, not the fact of his shooting), and still not be as free and clear as the term "reasonable doubt" makes it sound.

[OAW]

Autopsy results show that Martin had traces of marijuana in his system. Of course, we'll never know if Zimmerman had any substances in his system since the Sanford police did not perform a toxicology screen on him per department procedure. In the meantime, I imagine the Zimmerman defenders will latch onto this as if it is somehow germane to the situation.

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system - CNN.com

What is certainly more relevant is the actual autopsy report here. Notable findings:

- Entrance: Left chest, intermediate range
- Path of projectile: Skin, left anterior 5th intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle of heart, and right lower lobe of lung
- Direction of projectile: Directly front to back
- Exit: None

Which in plain English translates to ... shot mid-chest on the left side, bullet goes through the space between the ribs, pierces the right side of the heart, and lodges in the lower lobe of the right lung. Which sounds like a downward angle. On top of that, no exit wound. Which is odd to say the least if Zimmerman shot him a close range as he contends. It's possible to not have an exit wound at that range if the bullet bounces around inside the body and doesn't follow a straight path. But the report says the direction of the projectile was "directly front to back". It's not describing any sort of turns or changes in direction that might occur from a ricochet off a bone. Seems like this kid was positioned lower than Zimmerman at the time he was shot. As in on his knees or sitting on the ground backing away as he was screaming out for help because a strange man was standing over him with a gun.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Seems like this kid was positioned lower than Zimmerman at the time he was shot. As in on his knees or sitting on the ground backing away as he was screaming out for help because a strange man was standing over him with a gun.

OAW

You can't conclude anything from angles unless you know what orientation the victim was in when he was shot, and we don't know anything about that. Specifically, if they actually were grappling and rolling around on the ground then almost any combination of angles could be consistent with that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Specifically, if they actually were grappling and rolling around on the ground then almost any combination of angles could be consistent with that.

But could the shot still be considered "intermediate range" if they were rolling around on the ground? "Intermediate range" suggests to me that they weren't in close contact.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system - CNN.com

Same article:

Zimmerman had two black eyes, a (slightly) broken nose, a cut on the back of the head., constant with getting your ass beat.

Martin's injuries aside from the gunshot were broken skin on his knuckles, consistent with punching somebody repeatedly.

Intermediate range is defined as give or take 36 inches, which is within Trayvon's reach.

I'm still not seeing evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claims.

Plus, Trayvon didn't have "traces" of THC in his blood, he had enough to suggest he last smoked within 3 hours - in other words, he was under their influence when this all went down.

[Waragainstsleep]

3 hours after smoking isn't really under the influence. Your reflexes might not be 100%, but your behaviour and your judgement isn't going to be off by much.
If he was under the influence, he'd be far less likely to pick a fight.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

3 hours after smoking isn't really under the influence. Your reflexes might not be 100%, but your behaviour and your judgement isn't going to be off by much.
If he was under the influence, he'd be far less likely to pick a fight.

But off more than the sober dude that you've just attacked and beaten. And it was within 3 hours, i.e. less then. He was high.

And what do you mean "less likely to pick a fight"? Care to back that up? How can you make that assessment?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But off more than the sober dude that you've just attacked and beaten. And it was within 3 hours, i.e. less then. He was high.

And what do you mean "less likely to pick a fight"? Care to back that up? How can you make that assessment?

People on THC are generally more relaxed