Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

I'm unclear on the point. Are you suggesting GZ broke his own nose in the time between the EMT's treating him and him going to the hospital?

I'm suggesting there's no evidence Zimmerman broke his nose during the altercation with Martin. What happened after that is anyone's guess.

Up until I found out that Zimmerman's friend said that he didn't know his nose was broken until the next day, I assumed the EMT report would indicate that it was. But now we know it won't.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

About 3 weeks ago I happened upon an application written by George Zimmerman himself in 2008 to join the
Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Citizens Law Enforcement Academy.

Low and behold, what do we see:

“My father is a retired Magistrate Judge for the Supreme Court of Virginia and my mother was a deputy clerk of court for over 20 years." - George Zimmerman.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/87267817

Seems George seemed to think he was a judge.

Um, you do realize that he IS a "magistrate judge", don't you? It has already been explained by legal experts that "magistrate judge" is an entirely legitimate term for him.

 

[johnny karate]

What specific youtube videos are you referring to?

I'm not even sure it matters anymore. Quite frankly, I'm too lazy to find the link and post it. It was discussed earlier in the thread. If you're that curious, I'm afraid you'll have to find it yourself.

Why do you consider the police determining that the physical evidence,injuries and witnesses at the scene corroborating his story don't count as evidence?

You made two specific claims. One was that he had a broken nose. Aside from the word of a murder suspect, there's absolutely no evidence of that.

The other was that he was being whacked in the head for a significant amount of time, or something to that effect. Aside from the word of a murder suspect, there's absolutely no evidence of that.

What you've done - along with several other people in this thread - is to take a claim not yet substantiated with evidence as fact.

So what was once "Zimmerman claims to have been severely beaten and had his nose broken by Martin" becomes "Zimmerman was severely beaten and had his nose broken by Martin".

Unless you have a witness who saw that altercation and can confirm those claims, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Have you taken into account that the encounter highly likely couldn't have occurred in the place it did unless TM didn't go home?

So the person who had every right to be where he was not going immediately home... that's what concerns you? Not the guy following him around with a gun?

The wounds on his head.

So the wounds on his head are evidence he was repeatedly struck by Martin? According to whom?

You're right, it's not. That's yet another indication of the unlikelihood of GZ initiating the violence. Determining that sort of thing through falsifications and lowering of probabilities helps uncover the fact a man with a gun who called police and knew they were on their way is highly unlikely to have initiated the violence.

This is the same guy who assaulted a police officer after the police officer identified himself. This is the same guy who sounds like a complete idiot on his MySpace page. This is the same guy who thought it would be a good idea to follow a suspected criminal around with a gun. This is the same guy who put a bunch of goofy, self-aggrandizing nonsense on the website raising money for his defense. This is the same guy who "forgot" about all the money he raised prior to his bond hearing.

Just about everything we know about George Zimmerman suggests that good judgment and not being a moron aren't his strong suits. But if you want to assume he made all the right choices and exhibited level-headedness on a night when we know he had already made at least two bad decisions, be my guest.

 

[johnny karate]

EMT/Paramedics do not give definitive injury diagnosis.

Who said anything about "definitive"? Zimmerman supposedly didn't find out his nose was broken until the next day. You don't think the injury to his nose might have come up during the EMT examination?

He only had three injuries. Two cuts on the back of his head and a bloody nose. It stands to reason the EMTs at least looked at his nose and could have at least offered their informed medical opinion as to whether or not it was broken.

Furthermore, Zimmerman was reported to have been wearing a bandage on his nose the next day. This implies that another medical professional took a look at his nose and determined the bandage was warranted. But not the EMTs at the scene. They apparently suck at their jobs.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, the police determining that his story matched the evidence and witnesses at the scene, along with the release of the photos taken that show his head all bloodied.

None of which confirms that those injuries were a result of repeated "head shots" being delivered by Martin.

Again, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Why would it matter whether it was broken or just bloody?

You tell me. You claimed his nose was broken during the altercation in a previous post. You are one of several people who not only think it's important to the narrative, but assume it as fact.

Not really, I suspect you misunderstand the nature of a self-defense claim. One doesn't have to be on the verge of unconsciousness before feeling threatened, the difference between a bloody and bloody and broken nose is of little significance. As has been posted, one doesn't even have to be injured in order to make a valid self-defense claim.

If Zimmerman is caught lying about what happened that night, his credibility is shot. With his credibility shot, his claim of self-defense becomes less believable.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Edited by Lash: 

Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

 

[johnny karate]

There is now a bloody photo of the back of GZ's head, a police report saying GZ's head was bloody, Gilbreath saying GZ had multiple lacerations on his scalp from a hard object hitting it, three neighbors saying they saw GZ bandaged up, and GZ's own testimony. What's do you have to refute that?

You left out at least two witnesses that saw the blood immediately after the shooting, another witness who did not see blood but observed Zimmerman pacing back and forth holding his head, photos at the crime scene of head injuries, video at the police station showing injuries and a very strong suggestion by O'Mara of medical reports.

None of this - outside of the word of a suspected murderer - is evidence that Zimmerman sustained his injuries in the manner in which he claims. No one saw Martin deliver "several head shots".

Like Kaosium, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[KatieG]

Will we now be looking at a new Judge in this case?

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/05/...erman-arrests/

Rob Redding Reports: Judge In Trayvon Martin Case Refuses To Answer Questions About Wife’s Role In Earlier Zimmerman Arrests

May 2, 2012 6:05 PM

ATLANTA, May 2, 2012, 5 p.m. - A Florida judge today refused to discuss his wife, who a newspaper reports worked in the same office that handled previous felony charges that were dismissed against George Zimmerman, the man now responsible for the shooting death of an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

 

[Freddy]

Um, you do realize that he IS a "magistrate judge", don't you? It has already been explained by legal experts that "magistrate judge" is an entirely legitimate term for him.

It's also possible that Zimmerman isn't familiar with his father's job and duties, since this was a job his father took on in his retirement, not while Zimmerman was growing up. I doubt Zimmerman was intimately acquainted with the details of the organizational structure of the Virginia courts. He also doesn't seem all that bright.

Virginia magistrates decide bail and approve search warrants and arrest warrants. They are not judges (and not necessarily even lawyers), but magistrates are often referred to as "magistrate judges." If that is incorrect usage, then it's a very common mistake. I don't think that one can fairly read his statement as a claim that his father was a Virginia Supreme Court Justice, and any other inaccuracy of his description of his father's job title can be explained by ignorance and failure to make sure he was using the correct official job title.

I don't think this will be an issue at trial, because it is highly disputable whether the statement was an intentional lie. There is a threshold the prosecution would have to meet to introduce "prior bad act" evidence, and while it is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not sure it exists here since "dude's an idiot" seems just as plausible an explanation. Since Zimmerman was never accused of any crime relating to that incident (it probably is a crime to lie on that application), I don't see the judge allowing it. If it were admitted, it would result in a trial within a trial over an issue with no direct bearing on any element of the charged crime.

In addition, trying to bring it up could make the prosecution appear desperate: if I were a prosecutor and believed I had a strong case, I certainly wouldn't want to distract from my case by having a mini-trial during the trial over whether Zimmerman intentionally lied on that application or just had an incorrect understanding of his father's job description. If the prosecution feel that they need to use this to damage Zimmerman's credibility (or even if they feel it makes their case against his credibility significantly stronger than it already is), then they have a very weak case to begin with.

 

[Cylinder]

Here's what: There seems to be a pattern in this thread -- Downplay anything that casts doubt upon Zimmerman.

LOL...you just weren't around for The Man with the Golden Ear. Good times, man. Good times...

 

[Cylinder]

None of this - outside of the word of a suspected murderer - is evidence that Zimmerman sustained his injuries in the manner in which he claims. No one saw Martin deliver "several head shots".

Zimmerman claimed the injuries the night of the attack without benefit of witness testimony. Every eyewitness to the altercation asserts that one person was on top of the other. At least one identified Zimmerman as the person on bottom and that he was being beaten. None of the other eyewitnesses that I am aware of dispute that placement. Eyewitness to the aftermath report Zimmerman holding his head, looking dazed and pacing. A witness to the aftermath photographed the injuries. Zimmerman's photographed and police documented injuries are consistent with the claim that Martin beat Zimmerman's head against the cement. Though the police did assert inconsistencies with (and in) Zimmerman's claim, when directly confronted about this specific claim, the investigator had no evidence to dispute it - even after months of investigation.

You're attacking the right part, though. Without the head injuries, Zimmernam's self-defense claims tend to evaporate. The injuries to the nose, though very relevant, would not trigger a slam-dunk claim of justification. The problem for the prosecution is that the injuries are there and were there the night of the altercation. They were there at the scene to be noticed and photographed by witnesses before the police arrived, they were there for the police to document, they were there for the SFD rescue to document, they were there for the SPD intake cameras to document, they were there for the major crimes investigators to (presumably) photograph, tey were there for neighbors to observe the day after the incident and they were there when he got treatment.

The prosecution has to explain these injuries.

 

[Cylinder]

Will we now be looking at a new Judge in this case?

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/05/...erman-arrests/

Rob Redding Reports: Judge In Trayvon Martin Case Refuses To Answer Questions About Wife’s Role In Earlier Zimmerman Arrests

May 2, 2012 6:05 PM

ATLANTA, May 2, 2012, 5 p.m. - A Florida judge today refused to discuss his wife, who a newspaper reports worked in the same office that handled previous felony charges that were dismissed against George Zimmerman, the man now responsible for the shooting death of an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

Here is the direct link.

If the extent of the relationship is his wife worked in the former prosecutor's office, I don't see the conflict. Judge Recksiedler recused herself because of the appearance of conflict - probably mainly that as a CNN expert commentator for this story, her husband arguably had a financial interest in the trial.

 

[KatieG]

Here is the direct link.

If the extent of the relationship is his wife worked in the former prosecutor's office, I don't see the conflict. Judge Recksiedler recused herself because of the appearance of conflict - probably mainly that as a CNN expert commentator for this story, her husband arguably had a financial interest in the trial.

I have no opinion on this. I don't see how the large number of people in the legal community can't know and interact with each other. I think Judge Lester is qualified and able to remain within the law on his rulings, if this gets to trial.

 

[Cylinder]

Who said anything about "definitive"? Zimmerman supposedly didn't find out his nose was broken until the next day. You don't think the injury to his nose might have come up during the EMT examination?

I feel confident that the SFD Rescue assessed Zimmerman's nose. I'm saying that they would not be able to say with medical certainty that the nose was not broken. An EMT/Paramedic Fire Rescue isn't a mobile ER - it's a first aid/stabilization/medical transport. They DO NOT diagnose injuries. They assess patients and execute care plans.

I don't know what, if any, opinion the responder offered or documented on Zimmerman's injuries.

He only had three injuries. Two cuts on the back of his head and a bloody nose. It stands to reason the EMTs at least looked at his nose and could have at least offered their informed medical opinion as to whether or not it was broken.

What are the tests for broken nose? Were they performed? I don't know. In an ordinary call, the EMT would have found Zimmerman to be in stable condition with no signifigant blood loss. He would have probably done a quick assessment like breating, blood pressure/pulse rate, assessed for shock, maybe a quick history and (in a normal call) advise transport to be screened for concussion. Maybe trioforcharity can comment. Of course, he treated Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car, so that changes the context a bit.

Furthermore, Zimmerman was reported to have been wearing a bandage on his nose the next day. This implies that another medical professional took a look at his nose and determined the bandage was warranted. But not the EMTs at the scene. They apparently suck at their jobs.

So you're claiming that any treatment not given by EMTs are medicially unneccessary? The broken nose would not have neccessarily been treated by the responder becuase there's nothing really they could do for it at the scene and it didn't pose any immediate concern. The responder could well have an opinion if the nose was or was not broken, but that's not a definitive diagnosis.

I don't even know why we're arguing this point - the evidence will bear itself out in this matter. It's not really subjective or argumentative in nature. Remember in the bond hearing when O'Mara had his little joke on the investigator he asked about a "broken nose" (lay term), picked up the medical report to display to the witness, stopped himself and restated "fractured nose" (medical term)? What do you think that medical report is going to say?

The idea that Zimmerman presented at the scene to witnesses seconds after the altercation with a bloody nose, had it documented by police along with signs of signifigant head trauma, hung out with the police the rest of the night, then went home and decided to break his nose to bolster his claims would be an interesting argument to present to a jury.

That still doesn't explain the head injuries, does it?

 

[Rare Truth]

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)

 

[Dancing David]

• The description of events relayed by GZ in his call to the police is direct evidence for the behavior I described. I suspect you just have no idea what "evidence" means in regards to a criminal trial.
  
• It's obviously not "third hand", the public has access to the audio recordings of GZ himself talking at the time that it happened.
  
• While it is unsubstantiated that doesn't alter the fact that it is still evidence for the behavior I describe.

Huh, where does Zimmerman say TM is doing more than just walking past his car?

Seriously, where do the recordings show that? Where does it say what you said here:

"There is evidence that TM reacted weirdly hostile to GZ when GZ was on the phone in the truck to the point of approaching GZ's vehicle."

Seriously what exact words convey that and how is it evidence. Please quote the recordings.

I suspect you don't really want to go down the rabbit hole of pretending that your surmises are legal evidence.

How do you conclude from the evidence that TM approached GZ's vehicle with intent and did not just happen to walk past the car?

Seriously.

 

[Rare Truth]

...
You're attacking the right part, though. Without the head injuries, Zimmernam's self-defense claims tend to evaporate. The injuries to the nose, though very relevant, would not trigger a slam-dunk claim of justification. The problem for the prosecution is that the injuries are there and were there the night of the altercation. They were there at the scene to be noticed and photographed by witnesses before the police arrived, they were there for the police to document, they were there for the SFD rescue to document, they were there for the SPD intake cameras to document, they were there for the major crimes investigators to (presumably) photograph, tey were there for neighbors to observe the day after the incident and they were there when he got treatment.

The prosecution has to explain these injuries.

And nary a bandaid some 35 minutes later from this brutal head thrashing.

 

[LTC8K6]

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)

It's not clear what he means, though. It sounds like he is talking about the timing of the shot, and not the head injuries. Or does he mean the "scoot away" part?

 

[Cylinder]

It's not clear what he means, though. It sounds like he is talking about the timing of the shot, and not the head injuries. Or does he mean the "scoot away" part?

It's hard to say. One witness (anonymous male with the voice masked) claimed on AC360 that the struggle occurred in the grass but when asked follow up questions he admits it was in shadows and he had trouble making anything out. One witness (the young black male) is photographed pointing to the place the struggle took place - at the sidewalk. This is the witness that first claimed Zimmerman was on bottom, but changed the story in the face of media attention claiming police pressure the night of the shooting. Cutcher doesn't pinpoint the spot of the altercation. The witness who was closest to the altercation (John) clearly states Martin on top of Zimmerman at the sidewalk area.

Personally, I took it as the "scoot away" part, since the endpoint will be set by the placement of the body.

 

[Cylinder]

And nary a bandaid some 35 minutes later from this brutal head thrashing.

What is this obsession with bandages? Clearly, the photo shows injuries that should have been bandaged. The prosecution will have to explain the laceration and contusions on the back of Zimmerman's head. There's no way around that.