Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Rare Truth]

They would be in very deep fecal matter if they ignored or "forgot to ask for" an EMT assessment. They wouldn't be bound by what the EMT thought or believed, but they couldn't pretend like it didn't exist because they felt it might be exculpatory.

The state has a fairly strong affirmative obligation to investigate all reasonable evidence and alternate theories of the crime.
...

Thank you.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was specifically referring to the medical records O'Mara held up. I had already assumed the EMT report was in evidence and had been reviewed by the investigators as one of the 1st things they saw. If you reread my post, you may note I suggest the EMT records checked for broken nose and, well, here, in case you missed it:

Rare Truth[/b] ]
If the EMT report states he was checked for evidence of a broken nose (I'm not sure how they relay information in the EMS report, so help here is useful if I stray with an incorrect analysis) - but if they did check, and it was returned as negative, would that information be sufficient for the SA to be satisfied he indeed had no broken nose?

I am speaking only about the nose portion of his injuries here now.

Now, see, in bold:

...
Again:



O'Mara then tells him he will provide them to the state. Wouldn't these records (likely from after the incident, by a doctor the next day (?)) - Wouldn't the state already have this, as part of the original case handed to them? Would there be a reason that information would *not* be there?

It's just something that's bugging me about the way that exchange was handled, and the off hand way Gilbreath seems to dismiss the nose injury.

These to me sound like post-release medical records, the following day, or later. Perhaps Zimmerman never offered them to police (after all, early on, he thought he'd been cleared.) It *sounds* with this, they hadn't been offered until now.

O'MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?


GILBREATH: No. 


O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken. 


GILBREATH: No.


O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?


GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. 


O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? 


GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them? 

GILBREATH: Sure. 


O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.


You might see where I'm getting at. Maybe not. EMT's say no broken nose.
Later a doctor says he *did* have a broken nose. My weird tangent here (yes I know it's weird) is, after the fact, further injuries could have be...ah, created. Does the state have an obligation to...

Argh, Nevermind. I just don't think I can convey this properly, and it likely makes no sense.

Thanks anyway.

 

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, the police report says Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.

You often can't tell the nose is broken until you do an X-ray, which wouldn't have happened that night.

There's no reason or evidence to suspect that Zimmerman broke his nose later, imo.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

You might see where I'm getting at. Maybe not. EMT's say no broken nose.
Later a doctor says he *did* have a broken nose. My weird tangent here (yes I know it's weird) is, after the fact, further injuries could have be...ah, created. Does the state have an obligation to...

<snip>

I'm not sure it's possible for an EMT to definitively determine that a nose is not broken at the scene of an accident, with the normal tools available to them. They can recognize one that is certainly broken, or make educated evaluations of the likelihood that it is or isn't, but short of X-rays I don't know how they could be certain it isn't. I'd be a little bit surprised if they were to claim to be, especially if the nose was bleeding when they got there.

I don't think it matters anyway. The severity ... or lack thereof of GZ's injuries are not going to determine if the shooting was legal. Both supporters and detractors of GZ have argued this (at various times, depending on whether it was convenient to the point at hand.)

If he was legitimately and reasonably in fear for his life, it doesn't matter if he was already hurt or not. If he instigated the belligerence and ensuing scuffle it doesn't matter how badly he was losing. The degree of his injury is a red herring as far as his culpability is concerned. At least, that's what's been argued so far.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure it's possible for an EMT to definitively determine that a nose is not broken at the scene of an accident, with the normal tools available to them. They can recognize one that is certainly broken, or make educated evaluations of the likelihood that it is or isn't, but short of X-rays I don't know how they could be certain it isn't. I'd be a little bit surprised if they were to claim to be, especially if the nose was bleeding when they got there.

I don't think it matters anyway. The severity ... or lack thereof of GZ's injuries are not going to determine if the shooting was legal. Both supporters and detractors of GZ have argued this (at various times, depending on whether it was convenient to the point at hand.)

If he was legitimately and reasonably in fear for his life, it doesn't matter if he was already hurt or not. If he instigated the belligerence and ensuing scuffle it doesn't matter how badly he was losing. The degree of his injury is a red herring as far as his culpability is concerned. At least, that's what's been argued so far.

IIRC, the FL jury instructions on these cases, and the law, both indicate that it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. He would still be entitled to use deadly force if he was in fear for his life.

Starting a fist fight or an argument does not indicate the intent to kill.

I posted those jury instructions earlier.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

3.6f page 62

Even if he started the conflict, he can use deadly force if he is in fear for his life and attempted to get away or end the conflict, and was unable to.

 

[quadraginta]

IIRC, the FL jury instructions on these cases, and the law, both indicate that it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. He would still be entitled to use deadly force if he was in fear for his life.

Starting a fist fight or an argument does not indicate the intent to kill.

I posted those jury instructions earlier.

It seems like some have also argued that it does affect the quality of a SYG defense. The reasoning was if you pick a fight and start losing you don't get to suddenly whip out a howitzer and start blasting away, and then walk off scot-free 'cause now you're defending yourself.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I'm pointing out that the severity of the injuries incurred in this instance has been (at various times) argued to be of little relevance by both supporters and detractors of GZ. What part of that do you find fault with?

 

[quadraginta]

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

3.6f page 62

Even if he started the conflict, he can use deadly force if he is in fear for his life and attempted to get away or end the conflict, and was unable to.

Lot of qualifiers there. Which is why we have courts, and trials, and stuff, I guess.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against culpability. Did you even notice that?

 

[Cylinder]

I'm pointing out that the severity of the injuries incurred in this instance has been (at various times) argued to be of little relevance by both supporters and detractors of GZ. What part of that do you find fault with?

The problem lies in the definition of reasonable taking in to account the totality of the circumstance.

Let's say that I sent you a dozen letters threatening your life. Then one night I intercepted you on the way home and punched you in the face. Would you reasonably at that point be in fear of death or great bodily harm? Most people, I think, would probably say yes.

Let's say that we were good freinds at a cookout and were arguing about sports and took a cheap shot to your face. I think most people at that point would say no.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lot of qualifiers there. Which is why we have courts, and trials, and stuff, I guess.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against culpability. Did you even notice that?

Well I think we have Grand Juries for cases like this, to take a look at what evidence is there and see if charges should be brought.

 

[Dan O.]

I suppose because he wanted to introduce if a conclusion was drawn about any type of profiling, not just one specific type.

Since it hasn't been linked in the last couple of pages, the partial transcript is here.

If he were looking for "any" type of profiling he could have just asked and not waisted so much time playing silly word association games.

One of the dictionary definitions of profiling is "to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people". We know that George had identified Trayvon with one particular subgroup from his comment "These ******** always get away". Was O'mara's game to try and get the Gilbreath to say "********" in court? Sounds rather childish to me.

 

[quadraginta]

The problem lies in the definition of reasonable taking in to account the totality of the circumstance.

Let's say that I sent you a dozen letters threatening your life. Then one night I intercepted you on the way home and punched you in the face. Would you reasonably at that point be in fear of death or great bodily harm? Most people, I think, would probably say yes.

Let's say that we were good freinds at a cookout and were arguing about sports and took a cheap shot to your face. I think most people at that point would say no.

Okay.

...

And this has what, exactly, to do with my comment about whether or not GZ's nose was broken, and if the severity of his injuries is particularly germane to the issue?

 

[quadraginta]

Well I think we have Grand Juries for cases like this, to take a look at what evidence is there and see if charges should be brought.

Yeah. Like I said. "... and stuff."

Is there something that we're actually disagreeing about, and I'm just too obtuse to notice what it is? 'Cause your responses keep coming across like you're correcting some misapprehension on my part.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah. Like I said. "... and stuff."

Is there something that we're actually disagreeing about, and I'm just too obtuse to notice what it is? 'Cause your responses keep coming across like you're correcting some misapprehension on my part.

We are discussing the Trayvon martin case, I think.

The law is what it is, as are the jury instructions. They are available online.

What posters here have argued is what is of little relevance.

The law leaves room, even for an instigator, to legally use deadly force.

 

[3point14]

IIRC, the FL jury instructions on these cases, and the law, both indicate that it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. He would still be entitled to use deadly force if he was in fear for his life.

Starting a fist fight or an argument does not indicate the intent to kill.

I posted those jury instructions earlier.

Thanks for clarification.


This is the bit that freaks me out. I have difficulty seeing it as anything other than a licence to kill people you don't like.

Want someone dead? Pick a fight, start losing, shoot them. Job done.

 

[Dan O.]

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

3.6f page 62

Even if he started the conflict, he can use deadly force if he is in fear for his life and attempted to get away or end the conflict, and was unable to.

This is where Zimmerman earns the murder charge. He has stated that Martin was aware of the gun. Once Zimmerman has control of the gun the fight is over. He can't claim that Martin continued to beat his head against the sidewalk because he already claimed that it was in moving off the sidewalk that the gun was exposed.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks for clarification.


This is the bit that freaks me out. I have difficulty seeing it as anything other than a licence to kill people you don't like.

Want someone dead? Pick a fight, start losing, shoot them. Job done.

Does this also make dueling legal in Florida? If properly witnessed there would be no question that the other party intended to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The self defense claim wold therefore stand.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Does this also make dueling legal in Florida? If properly witnessed there would be no question that the other party intended to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The self defense claim wold therefore stand.

Only if you attempted to flee, or stop the duel, but were unable to do so.

 

[LTC8K6]

This is where Zimmerman earns the murder charge. He has stated that Martin was aware of the gun. Once Zimmerman has control of the gun the fight is over. He can't claim that Martin continued to beat his head against the sidewalk because he already claimed that it was in moving off the sidewalk that the gun was exposed.

Zimmerman also said Martin tried to smother him, which could have been after Z managed to get his head off the sidewalk. Maybe Martin, realizing he now can't kill Z by beating his head in, switches to a suffocation attempt.

There are all sorts of possibilities.

If Z's nose blood is on Martin's palm, that will be a clue.

 

[Dan O.]

Zimmerman also said Martin tried to smother him, which could have been after Z managed to get his head off the sidewalk. Maybe Martin, realizing he now can't kill Z by beating his head in, switches to a suffocation attempt.

There are all sorts of possibilities.

If Z's nose blood is on Martin's palm, that will be a clue.

You would seriously attempt to subdue a gun weilding stalker by smothering him with your hands?

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks for clarification.


This is the bit that freaks me out. I have difficulty seeing it as anything other than a licence to kill people you don't like.

Want someone dead? Pick a fight, start losing, shoot them. Job done.

You forgot the step where you have to trick them into grabbing your gun and threatening to kill you.... which appears to be the by the book defense Zimmerman is claiming.