Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

And what evidence will they use to convince the jury of this ? Testimony from serino that the injuries were consistent with GZs story ?

...

I'm guessing where going to get into another semantical merry-go-round again about the meaning of the word MARGINALLY --- which you, knowingly, left out.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actually, those were the words in the report of the Physicians Assistant who treated George.

No doctor actually ever treated George.

Actually, those were the words of the EMT and you can see them right here, just a few posts up.

And unless you claim a PA cannot diagnose a broken nose, I don't see a practical difference between Dr./PA

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm guessing where going to get into another semantical merry-go-round again about the meaning of the word MARGINALLY --- which you, knowingly, left out.

I knew as soon as I left it out, someone would cry.

"Consistent" and "marginally consistent" are both ...wait for it ... subsets of "consistent".

So to say that serino said his injuries consistent with his story, is accurate.

 

[Cylinder]

Letter of Seminole County Clerk of Court to Ben Crump

Pursuant to the Judicial Rules of Administration 2.420(d)(2), we are notifying you that we do not agree that the information contained within this document is subject to confidentiality as contained within subdivision (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) of this rule. We will maintain this information as confidential for a period of ten days but it will become public information after that time unless you file the appropriate motion pursuant to subdivision (d)(3).

This letter is in response to the Confidential Filing with the court by Crump, thought to be the terms of the civil settlement.

 

[Rare Truth]

I knew as soon as I left it out, someone would cry.

"Consistent" and "marginally consistent" are both ...wait for it ... subsets of "consistent".

....

That truly made me just laugh out loud a good one.

OK...out for now...thanks for the laugh. lololol

 

[remirol]

Yet not illegal. It may not have been the best judgement, but it wasn't illegal

Can you explain for me why you think the legality of George's actions is relevant to whether or not he will be able to claim self-defense here under the appropriate statutes?

and didn't justify being assaulted as he claims.

Can you explain for me the relevance of whether anything about TM's actions needs to be "justified"?
In case you didn't read what you snipped above, FLA statute can be read very simply: It isn't reasonable to respond to simple battery with deadly force. You're not allowed to shoot someone because they punched you in the nose.

It's clear that TM punched George in the nose, because he did have a busted and bloody nose, after all. However, that still is only simple battery, and as I have said elsewhere, simple battery is indicative of "fistfight" and not anything that would meet the definitions of justifiable force in 782 or 776.

When the facts are considered and not the sympathies, there won't be anything there to overcome reasonable doubt.

Of course, George has already lost one case by proxy on this. (cf. HOA/insurance settlement).

Requoted for convenience, since the highlighted questions got ignored.

Based on what you said below, I assumed you had some thought that his actions prior to the altercation were relevant:

Perhaps I misunderstood your point there.

This is non-responsive. Again, can you explain for me why you think the legality of George's actions is relevant to whether or not he will be able to claim self-defense here under the appropriate statutes?

In case you didn't see my response, here it is again:
I think you missed the word attempt in the statute, and the idea that it was stopped before it became felony assault.

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]First: Battery, not assault. The term has a precise definition in these circumstances. I have demonstrated by quoting the relevant FLA statutes that what George suffered was only battery, nor was it indicative that it was going to become anything other than simple battery.

FL 784.041
(1) A person commits felony battery if he or she: a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and
(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]

A punch in the nose is not any of the above, nor is it indicative that you are about to suffer any of the above. A punch in the nose is indicative of a fistfight, which falls under "simple battery".

As such, AGAIN: under Florida law, you are not permitted to shoot someone because you got punched in the nose.

* A punch in the nose is not an attempt to murder.
* A punch in the nose is not an attempted felony (it is a successful misdemeanor; simple battery)
* Starting a fistfight does not lead a reasonable person to conclude that they are about to suffer great bodily injury, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement;
* Starting a fistfight is not an attempt to commit a felony.

That removes all of George's defenses related to the broken nose. This means that for George to claim self-defense, he's going to have to make the second part of his story stand up -- that Trayvon was actively trying to continue to do him harm after that punch, AND that the degree of that harm was significantly escalated. It is not so easy as you think to go from "fistfight" to "attempted murder and/or felony battery", especially when the purported aggressor is completely unarmed.

And what about when the person that inflicted that "busted and bloody" (diagnosed as fractured) nose is on top of the injured person, continuing to hit them, or, at minimum, actively preventing them from getting up/escaping? What about the 2 lacerations on the back of this person's head that two EMT's suggested would likely need stitches?

All of these are currently in the realm of "speculation and/or subject to dispute". I believe that George did not actually receive any stitches that evening, is that correct? And there appears to be some question about whether TM actually hit George more than the one time -- largely because it appears that George didn't suffer any injuries other than the nose, and TM's hands don't appear to be damaged the way they typically would be?

What evidence is there that this was a "fight" as opposed to an assault? Who claimed to have seen a fight? Did GZ claim to have been in a fight?

Two people scuffling on the ground is still well within the definition of "fight", and apparently plenty of people saw two people on the ground... but the details seem to change a lot. As such, I need to review all the witness statements at the same time to try to assemble a complete picture -- apparently there is still some dispute as to who was on top apparently?? weird -- but that takes some time and this isn't really anywhere near my top 20 priorities. (also, 'attack' instead of 'assault' is better, see above)

Oh, by the way -- as noted in a different post, I consider GZ's claims to be largely worthless for my purposes. The State of Florida is obligated to assume them to be true; I am under no such constraints, and I prefer to discard them entirely as George has a vested interest in the version of events being one particular way.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Requoted for convenience, since the highlighted questions got ignored.

This is non-responsive. Again, can you explain for me why you think the legality of George's actions is relevant to whether or not he will be able to claim self-defense here under the appropriate statutes?

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/04/who-was-the-first-aggressor/
The First Aggressor Rule
The First Aggressor Rule is a rather simple common law rule that says “a defendant who provokes an encounter as a result of which he finds it necessary to use deadly force to defend himself, is guilty of an unlawful homicide

Whether GZ was the initial aggressor or not is relevant.

Oh, by the way -- as noted in a different post, I consider GZ's claims to be largely worthless for my purposes. The State of Florida is obligated to assume them to be true; I am under no such constraints, and I prefer to discard them entirely as George has a vested interest in the version of events being one particular way.

That's fine. You can decide whether you believe GZ is culpable or not. The question I am discussing is if GZ will be found guilty or not, which requires viewing the case from the perspective of the state of Florida.

 

[remirol]

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/04/who-was-the-first-aggressor/
The First Aggressor Rule
The First Aggressor Rule is a rather simple common law rule that says “a defendant who provokes an encounter as a result of which he finds it necessary to use deadly force to defend himself, is guilty of an unlawful homicide

Whether GZ was the initial aggressor or not is relevant.

Still non-responsive to the question.

Yet again, can you explain for me why you think the legality of George's actions is relevant to whether or not he will be able to claim self-defense here under the appropriate statutes?

Please be precise.

Addressing the above, however: Hornsby's analysis relies on his belief that the state needs to prove George was the aggressor; yet according to the Florida statutes, 776.041 is only one of the ways by which the State can impeach George's claim of self-defense. Even if the State does not prove that George was the initial aggressor, the fact still remains that George shot Martin. I've already covered this in prior posts.

Hornsby also claims to be a criminal lawyer, yet his website indicates that he and his firm primarily deal in civil cases -- specifically,

We take on cases involving serious personal injury, civil rights violations and whistleblower litigation. The hallmark of our firm is an unrelenting commitment to our clients' cases.

His bio says he was an assistant DA at the start of his career, but uses some very vague language when talking about that same career: "never lost a murder case" says nothing about how many he tried, how many were slam dunks, and how many OTHER cases he tried and what those results were. He's also based in Atlanta (amusing to me), and so I wonder if he has a license to practice law in Florida?

That's fine. You can decide whether you believe GZ is culpable or not. The question I am discussing is if GZ will be found guilty or not, which requires viewing the case from the perspective of the state of Florida.

Well... no, it doesn't. Not if you approach from the perspective of an investigator, as opposed to a lawyer who's ethically bound to take a particular side and provide the best possible representation for that side.

I have a suspicious confidence in our criminal justice system. I feel that far more often than not, it comes to the correct conclusion based on the truth of events. As such, I prefer to seek the truth of events, and then evaluate from there whether or not that truth has sufficient proof to stand up in a court of law.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Good luck.

 

[Dan O.]

This is at least in part why I ponder whether manslaughter wouldn't have been a better charge, of course. The core of the incident seems to stem from Zimmerman trying to be too much of a vigilante, rather than following NW protocol -- but poor judgment doesn't equate to intent to kill.

I consider it highly unlikely that Zimmerman, when he got out of the car, had anything more on his mind than playing cop and detaining Martin until the police arrived. Circumstances like this, of course, are why the real cops do NOT want civilians doing this sort of thing, and why the NW guidelines all say some variant of "observe, but do not engage".

I think there is an escalating intent. When George gets out of his truck, it isn't like a mad dash as seen on TV with the cop leaping out of the cruser before it comes to a complete stop and running several yards to tackle the perp. You George seems to take his time getting out, even pauses to lock the doors (twice).

I don't know what George's plan was. If George intended to watch for Trayvon exiting the neighborhood, he could have just driven straight east on RVC to the next corner and gotten a clear view down to the south. Or follow Twin trees and watch the exit from the west.

The only thing George could accomplish going into that alley way on foot would be to find Trayvon hiding in the dark. If that's his plan, he better remember to bring a flashlight. The alternative hypothesis for George after a quick search and not discovering any ******** hiding along the way would be "he ran".

We may not know for certain which way George went while talking to the dispatcher on the phone. Whether he went on to RVC or south "in the same direction as" Trayvon, but George is probably walking slowly back to his truck. Even if he went east, does he then go south when he gets back to tee? He came in here looking for this kid and he's already told the dispatcher that he's not going straight back to his truck so they'll have to call him to find where he is when they get into the area. He doesn't need a flashlight to see the path down the center of this open area with street lights illuminating the area from both ends.

The initial encounter was probably somewhere near the tee.that's what George says, that's what witnesses say and there has been no evidence to the contrary. Noe that George has found Trayvon, his intent should shift to stalling for time till this cops arrive. A friendly neighbor approach would be great here. Something like "Hi, I'm George Zimmerman, I'm the neighborhood watch commander for this community. I don't recall seeing you before, are you new to the area?" The tactic here is delay. The cops are already on the way and the longer you talk, the closer they get. Probably the worst approach would be to be demanding like "What are you doing here!" as if you didn't believe they belonged and you intended to do something about it. Of course, what would be even worse would be to make some sudden move as if reaching for a weapon.

What we here from DeeDee is Trayvon saying "I'm not going to run, I'm going to walk fast (or something similar to that). If Trayvom had popped George in the nose, he's not not going to simply walk away. He would either insure that George would not be getting up or he would be running as fast as he possibly could. Remember, the witnesses say this altercation started near the tee and moved south. The loud words continue as trayvon walks briskely away. Does George get back on the phone and call 911 to tell them "the ******* is here now and he's getting away" only to have to explain thay he cannot exactly say where "here" is because he is in a cut through and doesn't know the address? Or does George escalate his intent to physically stopping the ******* from getting away?

About 50 feet south of the tee we find the first real evidence of a physical nature to the altercation. Here we find Trayvon's cell phone that was usually clipped to his hoodie pocket, George's tactical flashlight and the empty plastic 7-11 bag (I'd like to see someone kick an empty bag upwind). My speculation is that Trayvon was walking away, George approached and grabbed Trayvon from behind, Trayvon spun to break George's grip and popped George in the face using whatever he happened to have handy.

As I said earlier, when you hit somebody, you don't stand around waiting for them to get up. That only happens in the movies. You have to either insure that your adversary isn't getting back up to retaliate or you use the opportunity to run away. If help is near by, sitting on your opponent and pinning their arms can be effective. Trayvon is surrounded by neighbors that are all awake. This would work almost anywhere except perhaps a gated community full of scardy-cats that run upstairs and hide when someone calls for help.

Does Trayvon at this point have the right to use deadly force to eliminate the threat of George retaliating? This is an interesting question for debate but there is no evidence that Trayvon continued to fight. George's injuries are consistent with the initial assault to his face and the fall backwards onto the concrete.

Trayvon cannot hold George down forever so for this path of action to succeed, he needs to call for immediate assistance.

George is going to be dazed. He's taken trama to his face and the back of his head. Each time his heart pumps he's going to feel the pounding pain at both sites. In this state he may actually believe he is being beaten to a pulp. If George can substantiate this he may be able to escape the intentional murder charge. How long do we estimate that George has been struggling on the ground under Trayvon? He's managed to rotate and slide off the pavement and onto the grass. But in all this time, he hasn't managed to escape Trayvon's grasp or be killed by those phantom punches. Is George screaming for help? It's quit possible that he did if the broken nose and the accumulation of blood interfering with his ability to breath didn't stop him. We'd also herd that George has memory problems so while he may believe he was the one calling for help, we cannot rely on that as a fact.

The big question comes down to: what is George's motivation when he draws his gun and shoots.

Clearly, if George believes he is being pummeled to a pulp, his motivation is to save his own life. But how long can that belief be held in lue of any actuall pummeling? If instead, the motivation is retaliation for being slugged, George is going to face serious consequences. We can argue back and forth about this but I believe this is a question that a Jury is going to decide.

 

[phonebook]

Two people scuffling on the ground is still well within the definition of "fight", and apparently plenty of people saw two people on the ground... but the details seem to change a lot.

It's also well within the definition of the person on bottom, who was the only one with injuries at the time, defending themselves from a continued assault. There is no evidence that distinguishes this as a fight.

 

[Mister Earl]

Begging your pardon, Phonebook, but there isn't evidence of a continued assault. His injuries are not consistent with his claims and description of a continuous assault. I could replecate those injuries easily by having someone pop me in the nose once and then falling and hitting my head on the sidewalk.

 

[remirol]

It's also well within the definition of the person on bottom, who was the only one with injuries at the time, defending themselves from a continued assault. There is no evidence that distinguishes this as a fight.

You've just described a fight where one person has gained the advantage. It isn't until weapons are involved or until one person is helpless and/or in danger of great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement, or permanent disability that it escalates beyond simple battery.

And, of course, here's the problem: George wasn't helpless, he was the only one with a weapon, and his injuries are consistent with a single punch to the face and then the back of his head hitting the ground. Eyewitness statements are mostly crap (which is why I've ignored them up til now), but it looks like that's the best we're going to get as far as any sort of objective account of what happened.

Also, Trayvon Martin's injuries are consistent with having delivered a single punch to the face. If you would like to propose a narrative where George is being pummelled silly while he's on the ground, I'm having some trouble figuring out where you get any of that from except George's own account... and we've already noted that George's statements are inherently suspect.

On a semi-related topic: I tried to fetch some .PDFs from gzdocs.com but the ones from the early bond hearing 404'd all over the place. Is that still a reliable source for documents, or is something else up... and if the latter, is there _another_ reliable source for documents that have been released? :/

(and before you suggest it, yes, I'm going to go wade through Wiki now and see if there are meaningful links there.)

 

[Unabogie]

And look, somehow GZ had blood on his cheeks ... almost as if someone had tried to cover his mouth...a "substantial amount" ...

[qimg]http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag121/thel8elvis/bloodoncheeks_zps62f5850e.jpg[/qimg]

You'd think with such a substantial amount of blood that even a tiny bit would transfer to the assailant's hands, clothes, and fingernails.

Perhaps Trayvon had self-cleaning hands using the same technology as George's pants? Has anyone tried to patent this?

 

[Unabogie]

All those things would be classified great bodily injury. So he did in fact claim he was in fear of great bodily injury.

Glad we agree on that.

No, he claimed he was actually sustaining bodily injuries. The lack of actual bodily injuries will be front and center is his upcoming murder trial.

Seriously, I don't get why you won't accept the idea that his claims of grievous assault actually hurt his case since they can be easily compared to his actual physical state after he murdered the victim?

Elypsis keeps posting that photo because the contrast between his claims and what your eyes show you is so stark. Are you really going to be shocked when the prosecution shows giant blow ups of those images and asks the jury why the injuries they see don't match the tale of "whaling", "smashing", and pummeling with "bricks"?

 

[Cylinder]

You'd think with such a substantial amount of blood that even a tiny bit would transfer to the assailant's hands, clothes, and fingernails.

As has been pointed out, Martin's hands were not tested for blood. As for fingernail scrapings, why should I expect Zimmerman's blood to be present?

 

[Unabogie]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img28/5645/me8blood.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img51/7580/me8a.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img407/1156/me8d.jpg[/qimg]

As has been pointed out, Martin's hands were not tested for blood. As for fingernail scrapings, why should I expect Zimmerman's blood to be present?

Because Zimmerman claimed he smothered his bloody face with both hands. And magically there's none of that blood anywhere. And as has been pointed out, the idea that they checked his fingernails and sleeves but neglected to check his hands is silly. I eagerly await the testimony from the lab technician as he explains that to the jury.

It'll be amazing. Self-cleaning hands and magic pants!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, he claimed he was actually sustaining bodily injuries. The lack of actual bodily injuries will be front and center is his upcoming murder trial.

You mean the lack of broken nose, lacerations, swelling, etc ? That lack of injuries ?

Seriously, I don't get why you won't accept the idea that his claims of grievous assault actually hurt his case since they can be easily compared to his actual physical state after he murdered the victim?

Serino: injuries are consistent
Unabogie: not consistent

FBI: not a racist
Serino: not a racist
Unabogie: racist

I don't get why you think I am better of believing you than serino or the fbi

Elypsis keeps posting that photo because the contrast between his claims and what your eyes show you is so stark. Are you really going to be shocked when the prosecution shows giant blow ups of those images and asks the jury why the injuries they see don't match the tale of "whaling", "smashing", and pummeling with "bricks"?

If it were so damn obvious, why did Serino say what he did ?

 

[Rare Truth]

http://imageshack.us/a/img28/5645/me8blood.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img51/7580/me8a.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img407/1156/me8d.jpg

As has been pointed out, Martin's hands were not tested for blood. As for fingernail scrapings, why should I expect Zimmerman's blood to be present?

You keep saying that, as if a medical examiner would look at bloody hands and just say, ep, better just test under the nails, and around the lower forearm/wrist and sleeve cuff - all that non-bloody part -- nebbermind any of that blood right there on his hands.

Yeah, that's incredulous.

And the shirt stain Z blood...Hmmm. TM was wearing a hoodie. Weighted down by a 24 ounce can of liquid. Kinda makes you wonder how a small spot of Z blood was found on the shirt, which was UNDER the hoodie.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

 

[remirol]

Serino: injuries are consistent

Dishonest. The word "marginally" is mandatory to include.

ETA: The statements:

"injuries are marginally consistent with Z's account"
"injuries are consistent with Z's account"

...carry two entirely different meanings. If Serino said the former phrase, you should, at all times you reference that quote, be using the former phrase as well.

 

[Rare Truth]

Because Zimmerman claimed he smothered his bloody face with both hands. And magically there's none of that blood anywhere. And as has been pointed out, the idea that they checked his fingernails and sleeves but neglected to check his hands is silly. I eagerly await the testimony from the lab technician as he explains that to the jury.

It'll be amazing. Self-cleaning hands and magic pants!

"No, your honor, we saw blood on the hands, but we decided it was best to go arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrround the areas where there was blood to test for DNA samples..."


lol