Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

The conditions described would appear to meet the criteria of 'serious physical injury'

Except that what is being discussed are the actual injuries Zimmerman suffered as opposed to the dubious claims he made in his fanciful tale.

 

[12AX7]

The gun seals the deal:

Of course it does. That's why George used the "he (Trayvon) saw my gun and went for it" (paraphrasing) line.

Because even George knows that his savage "beating" alone ain't gonna cut the 'lethal self defense' mustard.

 

[This is The End]

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?

I'm pretty sure this is the official archive for the State:

http://www.flcourts18.org/page.php?129

 

[Dan O.]

That applies to vessels involved in injury accidents. The police can't just randomly compel medical tests to uncover potential evidence. The first (but by no means final) bar would be an articulated susicion - which was not present in the case of Zimmerman.

That was in response to Elvis who has seen the error of his ways and made amens.

But I should have added that it was fortunate that George was not in his truck or he could have been subject to that statute. No, George instead carried his personal conveyance of death in a holster under his waistband.

I simply don't understand why we go to such measures to penalize drunk driving but when it comes to killing another person with a firearm designed for that purpose, the law doesn't care if you are sober or falling down drunk. It's like two sips of alcohol so badly affects your ability to reason that you cannot safely operate a motor vehicle yet no amount could affect your reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I think Zimmerman is telling the truth about thinking Trayvon saw the gun and was making a move for it. If he was prepared to shoot Trayvon for no good reason, absent a real threat yo his life as people claim, why scream for help? The screams were an attempt to end it WITHOUT using the gun.

Why scream? Why wait so long? Why shoot only seconds after finally getting a neighbor to get involved (however minimally?) Why wait til other people staring out their windows was much more likely?

John making himself known and trying to break it up and promising to call cops should have been a ray of hope for Zimmerman and dramatically reduced the feeling of needing to use the gun. The knowledge that the situation had gotten someone's attention and they were trying to stop it, and Zimmerman would have had every reason to expect that John was still at his door watching, with a cell phone at his ear. He almost certainly wouldn't know or see that he'd gone off to the upstairs and lost his visual.

So why pick that moment, seconds after he had direct confirmation that a third party was observing and it might finally be ending, to shoot and ruin his life by creating that legal peril for himself?

One of the best ways to explain it is that something about the attack fundamentally changed between John speaking and the gunshot. Something to make Zimmerman feel time had run out and he could not safely wait even another few seconds... and nothing fits that bill better than what he claims happened then; a direct and immediate threat to his life via the gun ending up in Trayvon's control.

The only other thing I can think of is what some have suggested which is that Trayvon stopped and was getting off Zimmerman and GZ took the opportunity to shoot him in

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Accidentally hit "submit" before I was quite done on my last post there, the final thought was that him shooting Trayvon after Trayvon ceased the attack and was getting up doesn't fit very well for me because of John saying Trayvon showed no signs of stopping, and didn't say anything to him about why he was attacking... and because frankly I don't peg GZ as the kind of monster who'd do that. Flawed guy? Yea, monster? No.

 

[Dancing David]

The conditions described would appear to meet the criteria of 'serious physical injury'

327.353 Blood test for impairment or intoxication in cases of death or serious bodily injury; right to use reasonable force.—
(b) The term “serious bodily injury” means an injury to any person, including the operator, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The gun seals the deal:


I don't have case examples. Do you have some case examples that would elucidate what specifically you think is required ?

Considering you are quoting a poster in the thread, you have yet to establish that a fractured nose and lacerations are 'serious physical injury' in FL statutes and case law.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Admitting to lying doesn't help credibility.

Neither does characterizing garden variety exaggeration as "lying."

 

[Unabogie]

Why scream?
Why wait so long?
Why shoot only seconds after finally getting a neighbor to get involved (however minimally?)
Why wait til other people staring out their windows was much more likely?
So why pick that moment, seconds after he had direct confirmation that a third party was observing and it might finally be ending, to shoot and ruin his life by creating that legal peril for himself?

So now we're no longer saying that George was addled by ADD, hazy memory, and an inability to express himself with words and lacked rational notions of time and space?

Because we keep bouncing back and forth on that.

 

[Dan O.]

Accidentally hit "submit" before I was quite done on my last post there, the final thought was that him shooting Trayvon after Trayvon ceased the attack and was getting up doesn't fit very well for me because of John saying Trayvon showed no signs of stopping, and didn't say anything to him about why he was attacking... and because frankly I don't peg GZ as the kind of monster who'd do that. Flawed guy? Yea, monster? No.

You're coming to see the same situation that I see. But rather than an either/or, I see an and. George did need an intent to pull his gun because nobody is saying that it went off accidentally. And, George needed access to reach his gun which he was incapable of reaching before.

The gun was on the back side of George's butt and under his pants. Even with the jacket pulled up, George was sliding backwards so this wouldn't pull down his pants. If George thought Trayvon saw and was reaching for his gun, this shows that George wasn't processing the situation in his head straight.

What would George's penalty have been if he had played this straight from the start saying he messed up because he wasn't thinking straight after that punch in the nose and hitting his head on the sidewalk? There would of course be civil penalties for the wrongfully death but a tragic accidental death by someone that could have been a big brother for Trayvon in the near future may not have pulled a significant criminal penalty.

But then there's that anger management issue. Someone like George just shouldn't be packing a gun. At a minimum, I hope at least that gets resolved.

 

[This is The End]

The problem with the entire "M was going for the gun in the waistband" argument is that after Z reaches the gun first, M is obviously no longer able to go for the gun in the waistband. That specific fear is no longer present at the moment the trigger is pulled.

The defense then has to extrapolate "Z was in fear because M was going for the gun in the waistband" into "Z was in fear that M would remove the gun from Z's hand after Z got to the gun first".

So the Defense is left with the latter, not the former.

We can only assume it would be slightly easier for M to get a gun from a holster than from someones hand. Does that affect how reasonable it is for Z to believe that M might get the gun?

 

[johnny karate]

I think Zimmerman is telling the truth about thinking Trayvon saw the gun and was making a move for it. If he was prepared to shoot Trayvon for no good reason, absent a real threat yo his life as people claim, why scream for help? The screams were an attempt to end it WITHOUT using the gun.

Why scream? Why wait so long? Why shoot only seconds after finally getting a neighbor to get involved (however minimally?) Why wait til other people staring out their windows was much more likely?

John making himself known and trying to break it up and promising to call cops should have been a ray of hope for Zimmerman and dramatically reduced the feeling of needing to use the gun. The knowledge that the situation had gotten someone's attention and they were trying to stop it, and Zimmerman would have had every reason to expect that John was still at his door watching, with a cell phone at his ear. He almost certainly wouldn't know or see that he'd gone off to the upstairs and lost his visual.

So why pick that moment, seconds after he had direct confirmation that a third party was observing and it might finally be ending, to shoot and ruin his life by creating that legal peril for himself?

One of the best ways to explain it is that something about the attack fundamentally changed between John speaking and the gunshot. Something to make Zimmerman feel time had run out and he could not safely wait even another few seconds... and nothing fits that bill better than what he claims happened then; a direct and immediate threat to his life via the gun ending up in Trayvon's control.

The only other thing I can think of is what some have suggested which is that Trayvon stopped and was getting off Zimmerman and GZ took the opportunity to shoot him in

It's interesting how on one hand, Zimmerman is assumed to have made sane, rational decisions in the heat of the moment, but on the other hand, he was so terrified and traumatized he can't even clearly remember what happened.

Convenient, that.

 

[triforcharity]

That applies to vessels involved in injury accidents. The police can't just randomly compel medical tests to uncover potential evidence. The first (but by no means final) bar would be an articulated susicion - which was not present in the case of Zimmerman.

Just FYI, in a case of using deadly force, a blood test is usually done, and can be required by law. I'll find the relevant section if you'd like, but it will be tomorrow at the earliest.

Cheers!

 

[Rare Truth]

There was some discussion by a few members that there was 'still time to file a pretrial immunity hearing.'

This motion, recently released, should put an end to that thought:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press...ension of Time to File Witness Disclosure.pdf

 

[remirol]

I'm pretty sure this is the official archive for the State:

http://www.flcourts18.org/page.php?129

That's got all the trial documents, but none of the attachments, unfortunately -- such as the original medical record for George and Trayvon, which I'd like to directly peruse as while snippets get quoted here routinely, context can be key.

Oh well. I'll keep diggin', though I find it intriguing that all the early docs have 404ed while many of the recent ones are still live.

 

[phonebook]

There was some discussion by a few members that there was 'still time to file a pretrial immunity hearing.'

This motion, recently released, should put an end to that thought:

[qimg]http://i49.tinypic.com/fzar7c.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press...ension of Time to File Witness Disclosure.pdf

I'm still under the impression that there is still time to file for immunity, sans the hearing. I'm not sure who was still holding onto the idea that there would be a separate hearing. I've heard or read a number of times that O'Mara would "roll" the hearing and trial into one event.

 

[Cylinder]

Just FYI, in a case of using deadly force, a blood test is usually done, and can be required by law. I'll find the relevant section if you'd like, but it will be tomorrow at the earliest.

Cheers!

I'd love to see it if you find the time I don't want to make too fine a point of with you in particular, since you have a good history of backing your claims, but I think you may be thinking of LEO requiring blood screens after use of force as part of their CBA (ie. we can't hold you down for a blood draw but you lose your job and attorney if you don't)

I can't speak to maritime law and the FL staute posted above, but the court has been pretty consistent that non-consentual, warrantless blood tests are only allowed in a very narrow set of circumstances - an injury accident where the driver was sent for treatment and was either not capable of consent or a blood draw was done for legitimate medical purposes.

It's really not at issue here anyway, since neither the police, SFD or the detectives articulated any suspicion that Zimmerman was impaired at the time of the shooting.

 

[Cylinder]

I'll keep diggin', though I find it intriguing that all the early docs have 404ed while many of the recent ones are still live.

That happenned with the GZLC site changed servers around 6 weeks ago. Notice that the old pleadings have their own directory (e.g. ..\documents\name_of_pleading\name_of_pleading.pdf) while the new ones are placed in a MMYY format directory (e.g. ..\documents\0413\name_of_pleading.pdf). Trying to rebuild a new URL with the new algorithm doesn't work either. Old docs are reappering from time-to-time, though, so it's either an on-going project or they are looking at the logfiles and correcting them as they appear.

Most of the amedments are just information taken from the discovery packets, so that's a good place to look. You won't find deposition transcripts there, though.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd love to see it if you find the time I don't want to make too fine a point of with you in particular, since you have a good history of backing your claims,

Thank you. I do try my best, especially when it comes to gun laws, self defense, and things of that nature.

but I think you may be thinking of LEO requiring blood screens after use of force as part of their CBA (ie. we can't hold you down for a blood draw but you lose your job and attorney if you don't)

No, it's a Florida Law also. Here's the relevant statute, and a link.

790.155 Blood test for impairment or intoxication in cases of death or serious bodily injury; right to use reasonable force.—
(1)(a) Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 790.153, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a firearm used by a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, such person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of his or her blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof or the presence of controlled substances therein. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner.
(b) The term “serious bodily injury” means a physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
(2) The provisions of s. 316.1933(2), relating to blood tests for impairment or intoxication, are incorporated into this act.
(3)(a) Any criminal charge resulting from the incident giving rise to the officer’s demand for testing should be tried concurrently with a charge of any violation of s. 790.151. If such charges are tried separately, the fact that such person refused, resisted, obstructed, or opposed testing shall be admissible at the trial of the criminal offense which gave rise to the demand for testing.
(b) The results of any test administered pursuant to this section for the purpose of detecting the presence of any controlled substance shall not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution for the possession of a controlled substance.
(4) Notwithstanding any provision of law pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records or other medical records, information obtained pursuant to this section shall be released to a court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, or law enforcement officer in connection with an alleged violation of s. 790.151 upon request for such information.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html

I can't speak to maritime law and the FL staute posted above, but the court has been pretty consistent that non-consentual, warrantless blood tests are only allowed in a very narrow set of circumstances - an injury accident where the driver was sent for treatment and was either not capable of consent or a blood draw was done for legitimate medical purposes.

That is correct. Mostly. In Florida, you may be required to submit to a breathalizer, or a blood draw, in a very few specific cases. (Usually while driving some vehicle, and someone is killed) Though, the SCOFL has recently started debating if requiring a blood draw is considered a search that would be protected under the 5th Amendment.

It's really not at issue here anyway, since neither the police, SFD or the detectives articulated any suspicion that Zimmerman was impaired at the time of the shooting.

I don't recall that either, though IIRC, they did in fact administer a test, though I don't recall which test.

 

[Darkman]

Robert Zimmerman JR @rzimmermanjr

https://twitter.com/rzimmermanjr

Friends, on the eve of the most horrific abuse of the judicial system in recent history, our mother has asked me 2 publish a letter, standby

2:24 AM - 11 Apr 13

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135286421/A-Letter-of-Gratitude-from-Gladys-Zimmerman