Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Regarding the issue of the broken nose and black eyes:

I capitulate Zimmerman had both, and have never argued otherwise since the release of the medical records.

I also think the photos and the medical records demonstrate the break was minor, and the black eyes were symptomatic of the broken nose rather than being separate injuries.

So my question to all those defending the unimpeachable diagnostic acumen of the PA who treated Zimmerman:

Do you also except her diagnosis that Zimmerman did not need sutures?

 

[Unabogie]

You fail to see the relevance as to why TM had a right to defend himself?

Seriously?

This is going to be the main issue in the case. The state will contend that it happened as follows:

1. George profiled Trayvon from an erroneous assumption (I believe it's obviously race, but they they may not argue this).
2. Trayvon noticed the creepy man following him in his truck and tried to move away.
3. George followed him in his truck.
4. Trayvon started running away.
5. George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.
6. Behind the houses, George found the victim, at which point the victim had (a) no idea who this creepy man was, and (b) had no obligation to give him any benefit of the doubt, and (c) had a right to defend himself from bodily harm.
7. At no time did George attempt to identify himself or help defuse the situation.
8. A fight broke out. It doesn't matter who punched who first because Trayvon had a right to stand his ground.
9. George shot Trayvon.
10. George's injuries show he wasn't in any actual danger.
11. George lied to the police about various details in order to make his victim look like the aggressor and himself look like an innocent bystander.

In light of that, the right of the victim to punch him in the nose will absolutely be relevant. In fact, I think they'll mention that in the first five minutes of the trial and hammer away at it over and over.

 

[WildCat]

See post #8049.

Nope, not seeing anything there that justifies assaulting someone.

But at least now you're admitting Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and you've moved on to trying to justify the assault.

 

[johnny karate]

A good read on who was the aggressor, from a Criminal Lawyer.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/04/who-was-the-first-aggressor/

The summation from that link:

As a result, the charge of Second Degree Murder would be subject to dismissal under Florida’s self-defense law.

Have you emailed this link to O'Mara?

Because he is apparently unaware that he could get this case dismissed.

 

[Rare Truth]

This is going to be the main issue in the case. The state will contend that it happened as follows:

1. George profiled Trayvon from an erroneous assumption (I believe it's obviously race, but they they may not argue this).
2. Trayvon noticed the creepy man following him in his truck and tried to move away.
3. George followed him in his truck.
4. Trayvon started running away.
5. George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.
6. Behind the houses, George found the victim, at which point the victim had (a) no idea who this creepy man was, and (b) had no obligation to give him any benefit of the doubt, and (c) had a right to defend himself from bodily harm.
7. At no time did George attempt to identify himself or help defuse the situation.
8. A fight broke out. It doesn't matter who punched who first because Trayvon had a right to stand his ground.
9. George shot Trayvon.
10. George's injuries show he wasn't in any actual danger.
11. George lied to the police about various details in order to make his victim look like the aggressor and himself look like an innocent bystander.

In light of that, the right of the victim to punch him in the nose will absolutely be relevant. In fact, I think they'll mention that in the first five minutes of the trial and hammer away at it over and over.

By George, I think you've nailed it.

 

[WildCat]

This is going to be the main issue in the case. The state will contend that it happened as follows:

1. George profiled Trayvon from an erroneous assumption (I believe it's obviously race, but they they may not argue this).
2. Trayvon noticed the creepy man following him in his truck and tried to move away.
3. George followed him in his truck.
4. Trayvon started running away.
5. George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.
6. Behind the houses, George found the victim, at which point the victim had (a) no idea who this creepy man was, and (b) had no obligation to give him any benefit of the doubt, and (c) had a right to defend himself from bodily harm.
7. At no time did George attempt to identify himself or help defuse the situation.
8. A fight broke out. It doesn't matter who punched who first because Trayvon had a right to stand his ground.
9. George shot Trayvon.
10. George's injuries show he wasn't in any actual danger.
11. George lied to the police about various details in order to make his victim look like the aggressor and himself look like an innocent bystander.

In light of that, the right of the victim to punch him in the nose will absolutely be relevant. In fact, I think they'll mention that in the first five minutes of the trial and hammer away at it over and over.

Nice story, too bad the evidence shows no such scenario occurred.

Martin had a big head start when he started "running away", and Zimmerman never ran at all. Martin wasn't even concerned enough about Zimmerman that he broke off the phone call to his girlfriend in order to call the police. Both Zimmerman's and the girlfriend's account has Martin confronting Zimmerman, not the other way around.

But hey, when the known facts don't support your case I guess you have to go with made-up fantasy.

 

[Unabogie]

By George, I think you've nailed it.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

 

[johnny karate]

This is going to be the main issue in the case. The state will contend that it happened as follows:

1. George profiled Trayvon from an erroneous assumption (I believe it's obviously race, but they they may not argue this).
2. Trayvon noticed the creepy man following him in his truck and tried to move away.
3. George followed him in his truck.
4. Trayvon started running away.
5. George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.
6. Behind the houses, George found the victim, at which point the victim had (a) no idea who this creepy man was, and (b) had no obligation to give him any benefit of the doubt, and (c) had a right to defend himself from bodily harm.
7. At no time did George attempt to identify himself or help defuse the situation.
8. A fight broke out. It doesn't matter who punched who first because Trayvon had a right to stand his ground.
9. George shot Trayvon.
10. George's injuries show he wasn't in any actual danger.
11. George lied to the police about various details in order to make his victim look like the aggressor and himself look like an innocent bystander.

In light of that, the right of the victim to punch him in the nose will absolutely be relevant. In fact, I think they'll mention that in the first five minutes of the trial and hammer away at it over and over.

Succinct and well-put. Nicely done.

And to this point:

George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.

... the important thing to note about that is that Zimmerman ended up in a location away from any street sign or potential away to find an address without offering any plausible explanation as to how, and that contradicts his version of events in which he went immediately down with Martin on top of him.

So I don't think the prosecution will have any problem demonstrating to a jury that Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow Martin and continued to follow Martin beyond the point that Zimmerman claims.

 

[WildCat]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

So now we're back to the claim that Zimmerman was chasing after Martin, gun in hand, in order to kill him.

And I guess the chase was like one of those old B-movie horror flicks, where the helpless victim runs as hard as she can from the monster who plods along slowly yet somehow manages to catch up to her.

 

[Rare Truth]

In the totality, Martin left the area where Zimmerman was TWICE.

Zimmerman chased/followed/pursued Martin after each departure. One demonstrated a willingness to avoid confrontation, one demonstrated a willingness to cause a confrontation.

When someone pursues you at night, in the dark, when it's raining - you take a realistic attitude they may have an intent kill, rape, or do great bodily harm.

Furthermore, when Z reached for what TM likely believed was his gun, that was an assault.

784.011 Assault.—

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
​

Martin was in every way in his right to Stand His Ground.

 

[Rare Truth]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

Bravo!

"golf clap*

 

[Mister Earl]

Nice story, too bad the evidence shows no such scenario occurred.

Martin had a big head start when he started "running away", and Zimmerman never ran at all. Martin wasn't even concerned enough about Zimmerman that he broke off the phone call to his girlfriend in order to call the police. Both Zimmerman's and the girlfriend's account has Martin confronting Zimmerman, not the other way around.

But hey, when the known facts don't support your case I guess you have to go with made-up fantasy.

Even if this turns out to be exactly what happened, do you think that makes it acceptable to shoot him dead? Isn't this a form of entrapment? Keep persuing someone until they confront you about it, get them to hit you, then kill them and claim self defense?

#EDIT: For that matter, is it confirmed that Martin was actually running, and not "running" in the same sense Zimmerman was? What do the phone calls say? Honest question, I do not know this answer.

 

[johnny karate]

Martin had a big head start when he started "running away", and Zimmerman never ran at all.

You state that like it's fact. Weird.

But I guess asserting things that are factually inaccurate or just completely made up is a habit.

And I guess the chase was like one of those old B-movie horror flicks, where the helpless victim runs as hard as she can from the monster who plods along slowly yet somehow manages to catch up to her.

Yeah, because what really happened is the totally believable scenario in which a young black thug viciously attacked and tried to murder the perfectly innocent and upstanding white citizen for no apparent reason.

That doesn't sound like something out of a bad movie at all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Regarding the issue of the broken nose and black eyes:

I capitulate Zimmerman had both, and have never argued otherwise since the release of the medical records.

I also think the photos and the medical records demonstrate the break was minor, and the black eyes were symptomatic of the broken nose rather than being separate injuries.

So my question to all those defending the unimpeachable diagnostic acumen of the PA who treated Zimmerman:

Do you also except her diagnosis that Zimmerman did not need sutures?

I agree you have reasonably accepted the broken nose and the symptomatic black eyes.

While she may or may not have verbally communicate something to the effect of "you could have used stitches if/except for/but ... " that isn't particularly relevant except to determine if GZ accurately was reporting what he was told.

She wrote in the diagnosis he didn't need sutures, so he didn't.

 

[johnny karate]

For that matter, is it confirmed that Martin was actually running, and not "running" in the same sense Zimmerman was? What do the phone calls say? Honest question, I do not know this answer.

How Martin was running has never been determined.

From Serino's 2/29/12 interview with Zimmerman:

Serino: OK. Full sprint, full-on flight…jogging, trotting…describe the run.

Zimmerman: I don’t remember. I just, cause I was on the phone. It happened so quickly.

Serino: Well, ah, I understand that, George, but I guess that it’s um…if it was a bicycle theft I could say OK, but it’s kinda important. I mean, was he running as to evade you, get away from you, ah, maybe got tired of getting wet in the rain. What kinda run was it? I mean, it sounds like he’s running as to get away from you.

Zimmerman: I don’t know why he was running.

Serino: But what kinda run was it? Can’t say?

Zimmerman: I don’t know.

So when another poster who has a penchant for getting basic facts wrong and being confused asserts that Martin had some significant head start over Zimmerman - and further asserts Zimmerman never ran at all - rest assured that poster is once again just making things up without bothering to verify what they're asserting.

 

[Mister Earl]

How soon were the black eyes diagnosed? From the night of, how long was it until the diagnosis was given?

 

[johnny karate]

I agree you have reasonably accepted the broken nose and the symptomatic black eyes.

Thank you.

While she may or may not have verbally communicate something to the effect of "you could have used stitches if/except for/but ... " that isn't particularly relevant except to determine if GZ accurately was reporting what he was told.

I'm content to agree to disagree on this point.

While what you propose is certainly plausible, at this juncture, Zimmerman has very little credibility with me.

She wrote in the diagnosis he didn't need sutures, so he didn't.

I believe we have reached an accord.

 

[Rare Truth]

How Martin was running has never been determined.

From Serino's 2/29/12 interview with Zimmerman:



So when another poster who has a penchant for getting basic facts wrong and being confused asserts that Martin had some significant head start over Zimmerman - and further asserts Zimmerman never ran at all - rest assured that poster is once again just making things up without bothering to verify what they're asserting.

Lest we forget, he told Sean Hannity he was "skipping."

I guess in the to the loo my darling kinda way.

 

[johnny karate]

How soon were the black eyes diagnosed? From the night of, how long was it until the diagnosis was given?

It was the next day.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is going to be the main issue in the case. The state will contend that it happened as follows:

1. George profiled Trayvon from an erroneous assumption (I believe it's obviously race, but they they may not argue this).
2. Trayvon noticed the creepy man following him in his truck and tried to move away.
3. George followed him in his truck.
4. Trayvon started running away.
5. George exited his vehicle and continued the chase. Trayvon continued to try and move away, ending up behind the houses, some 50 feet south of the T.
6. Behind the houses, George found the victim, at which point the victim had (a) no idea who this creepy man was, and (b) had no obligation to give him any benefit of the doubt, and (c) had a right to defend himself from bodily harm.
7. At no time did George attempt to identify himself or help defuse the situation.
8. A fight broke out. It doesn't matter who punched who first because Trayvon had a right to stand his ground.
9. George shot Trayvon.
10. George's injuries show he wasn't in any actual danger.
11. George lied to the police about various details in order to make his victim look like the aggressor and himself look like an innocent bystander.

In light of that, the right of the victim to punch him in the nose will absolutely be relevant. In fact, I think they'll mention that in the first five minutes of the trial and hammer away at it over and over.

You're legal prediction track record has been less than stunning.

1. the state has not contended any racial profiling. If the state doesn't contend it, I don't know why you do.
5. no evidence exists Trevon was 50' from the Tee prior to the fight. Witness accounts prove otherwise
6. there was no bodily harm happening for Trevon to defend himself from
8. it's been explained why it matters who started the fight. You have provided no evidence Trevon had any reason to stand his ground.
10. GZ was under no obligation to wait until he was severely injured

There is no right for Trevon to "punch him in the nose " because he felt scared of GZ.