The Zimmerman Trial

[Professor Paradox]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, no matter how the racists/righties want to spin it. Zimmerman claims self-defense but seriously, why would a grown man need to defend himself from a child, for crying out loud? That argument doesn't hold water.

Zimmerman was told multiple times to back off and leave young Trayvon alone, but he did not do so. He engaged in an altercation when the best thing to do would have just been to walk away. Zimmy knew what he was doing or at the very least had an itchy trigger finger and was out for blood.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, ...

That fact speaks either to the evidence or the mind.

 

[dust1n]

A broken nose doesn't qualify as head trauma? Lacerations and bruising don't qualify?

Well, trauma just means injury.

According the doctor who saw him and referred to his lacerations as "atraumatic."

The damage via two lacerations does not indicate to me multiple intentional slamming of the head by one person or another.

I guess it depends on how one views trauma, but I note the usefulness to referring to lacerations as head trauma; sounds INTENSE.

One of the times I was attacked, I was knocked unconscious when one kid threw a haymaker into my temple (fortunately I was only unconscious for less than a second). Afterward, I had less head trauma than Zimmerman did.

While you're unconscious, you're completely helpless. If you hold back until it happens, it's already too late.

Are you trying to lawyer (new verb usage) an emotional response from me?

You're suggesting that Zimmerman got two lacerations on the back of his head while he was on top? How do you think those got there?

Either Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the pavement, or Martin hit Zimmerman in the back of the head with something substantially harder than his fist.

That wasn't my suggestion at all.

For some reason, I don't buy your either/or a single bit. The lacerations could have resulted into backing into the tree branches. The lacerations could have resulted from his own tripping and falling. The lacerations could have resulted from punches that hit the back of the head. The lacerations could have been caused by concrete, but not due to slamming, but rather, falling backwards after being punched... etc.

After the fight, I think we can safely assume that Zimmerman stood up and moved around, which would explain why there was blood flow in other directions.

There isn't no such thing as a safe assumption in a murder case. Standing up and moving around doesn't explain blood trails from crest of the back of the head to the earlobe. Blood doesn't drip at a slant. His head would have to be leaning forward, such that his head was bowed, which could be the case if he sat down for a second, or was ever on top of someone.

So, I'm not going to safely assume anything.

Untreated scalp wounds bleed for a long time (again, I have personal experience). Can you think of some reason Zimmerman would have remained lying on his back after it was over?

Exhaustion? Confusion? Shock? Head Trauma? Can you think of some reason why the crime scene technician couldn't find any blood on the concrete, where she explicitly stated she found no blood on the concrete? How about the body lying face down some distance from the concrete? Lack of road rash on the back of the head?

I agree that Zimmerman did not suffer any life-threatening injuries during the altercation, but that's not the standard of proof. If someone has a gun and is displaying malicious intent, you don't need to wait for them to shoot you. If someone has a knife and is displaying malicious intent, you don't need to wait for them to cut you (not even as much as you might cut yourself while shaving). If someone is trying to smash your head against the pavement, you don't even have to wait for them to do it once.

I have not proclaimed innocent or guilty...

People keep trying to second-guess medical personnel, even though they have no medical background. People keep trying to second-guess what was going through Martin's and Zimmerman's head, even though they have no experience being in a similar situation.

I used the doctor who saw Zimmerman's words.. That's an appeal to his authority, not second guessing his judgment.

If you see a lawyer trying to make an emotional appeal to a jury, it's an indicator that they have a weak case. While courtroom dramas focus on the emotional appeals (because they're dramatic), don't mistake it for being the way a good lawyer presents a great case.

And both parties aren't guilty of emotional appeals to the jury?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, sure... I don't contend that there likely isn't enough evidence to convict the man of murder... but Zimmerman's story is far from believable, the bashing of the head on concrete, for example, seems far from even possible to me considering where the body is at. There was no mention of moving the body ten feet after having shot the kid.

What do you think Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into if it wasn't concrete?
Did the prosecution dispute the claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman banging his head into something?

Except any of that evidence could be equally suggestive that Martin was defending himself, attempting to restrain an attack, etc. etc.

Was there any physical injury to Martin prior to being shot?

 

[Karl R]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, no matter how the racists/righties want to spin it. Zimmerman claims self-defense but seriously, why would a grown man need to defend himself from a child, for crying out loud?

At Martin's time of death, he was 17 years old, 5'11" (180 cm) and 158 lbs (72 kg).
Zimmerman was 28 years old, 5'7" (170 cm) and 185 lbs (84 kg)

I find it interesting that you accuse other people of spinning the truth, but in the next sentence you refer to someone who was 5'11" and 158 lbs as a "child." Martin's about my size, and I'm definitely a grown man.

I guess it depends on how one views trauma, but I note the usefulness to referring to lacerations as head trauma; sounds INTENSE.

Having hit my head against concrete a few times (atraumatically, I may add), it feels intense.

If you are in a fight or an accident, you don't have the time to get a medical opinion about how seriously you are hurt. If you're in a fight, you can generally assume that the person you're fighting will continue to do more damage to you (or continue trying) until they leave or you render them incapable.

I'd say that it would be reasonable for both of them to fear for their lives. However, the law only protects one of them. The first person who committed assault (threat) or battery (hitting) against the other doesn't have protection under law.

I have no idea which one of them did that.

The lacerations could have resulted into backing into the tree branches. The lacerations could have resulted from his own tripping and falling. The lacerations could have resulted from punches that hit the back of the head. The lacerations could have been caused by concrete, but not due to slamming, but rather, falling backwards after being punched... etc.

I've backed into tree branches multiple times, but never hard enough to cause a cut that bled. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman was backing up very rapidly? I've also tripped and fallen, but in order to trip and hit the back of my head, I have to be moving backward at the time.

So according to your theory, Zimmerman got those lacerations while retreating from the fight.

In order to get punched in the back of the head, I either need to have my back to my opponent (which again suggests Zimmerman is retreating) or I'd have to be down (perhaps on one knee or on hands and knees) while an opponent hits me from above (which suggests Martin was attacking Zimmerman while at a momentary advantage).

And if I've gotten punched, knocked over backward, landed on my back and hit my head, that also means I'm down and at a disadvantage while my opponent is still standing.

Every alternative you gave suggests that either Martin had an advantage (at least momentarily) or that Zimmerman was retreating.

You're doing a better job at producing reasonable doubt than I am.

There isn't no such thing as a safe assumption in a murder case. Standing up and moving around doesn't explain blood trails from crest of the back of the head to the earlobe. Blood doesn't drip at a slant. His head would have to be leaning forward, such that his head was bowed, which could be the case if he sat down for a second, or was ever on top of someone.

Sitting down (or bending over) to catch his breath afterwards is a reasonable alternate explanation. It does not prove guilt.

How about the body lying face down some distance from the concrete?

Are you suggesting that Martin should have died where he was shot? According to his autopsy report, Martin likely remained conscious for a time.

Lack of road rash on the back of the head?

Road rash occurs when you scrape your skin across pavement, not when you slam it directly into pavement.

And both parties aren't guilty of emotional appeals to the jury?

Both sides are using emotional appeals, because both sides lack facts. But a lack of facts for both sides leads to reasonable doubt.

 

[Karl R]

Was there any physical injury to Martin prior to being shot?

Here's a link to wiki's description of the autopsy report.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's a link to wiki's description of the autopsy report.

Thanx!

 

[dust1n]

What do you think Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into if it wasn't concrete?
Did the prosecution dispute the claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman banging his head into something?

I know nothing of bashing. Again, I find it hard to believe no blood managed to exit the head onto the concrete via bashing. The damage on the back of the head does not indicate to me bashing.

I don't know what the prosecution claimed; I wasn't in the courtroom. I'd have to wait until court transcripts leaked before I could answer your question.

Was there any physical injury to Martin prior to being shot?

Does someone have to sustain injuries in order to defend themselves?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know nothing of bashing. Again, I find it hard to believe no blood managed to exit the head onto the concrete via bashing. The damage on the back of the head does not indicate to me bashing.

Blood did accumulate later, so perhaps the flow was slight enuf that none was detected on the concrete, particularly since contact from up-&-down bashing would've been intermittently brief.
From the Wiki article....

A witness who arrived shortly after the shooting revealed photos that he took that night that showed "blood trickling down the back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head". In revealing the photo to ABC News in mid-April, he noted that he had heard but had not seen the scuffle, had been the first to arrive, and had been the first to talk to Zimmerman after the shooting.[18]

I don't know what the prosecution claimed; I wasn't in the courtroom. I'd have to wait until court transcripts leaked before I could answer your question.

I ask because if such evidence were material, the prosecution would've used it. But I don't recall that. (I have only watched excerpts.)

Does someone have to sustain injuries in order to defend themselves?

No. But injuries & their nature are part of the picture from which we figure out what happened.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, no matter how the racists/righties want to spin it. Zimmerman claims self-defense but seriously, why would a grown man need to defend himself from a child, for crying out loud? That argument doesn't hold water.

Zimmerman was told multiple times to back off and leave young Trayvon alone, but he did not do so. He engaged in an altercation when the best thing to do would have just been to walk away. Zimmy knew what he was doing or at the very least had an itchy trigger finger and was out for blood.

All the forensic evidence points to self-defense. The only injuries Trayvon Martin had (obviously besides the gunshot wound) were on his knuckles. This suggests that he was clearly winning the fight. Zimmerman had multiple wounds on his head and face. The angle of the gunshot wound shows that Martin was in what we in martial arts call "full mount", meaning he was on top of Zimmerman's abdomen; a position where it is near impossible for the person on the bottom to defend themselves. When someone is on top of you positioned above your hips, you can't wrap them up with your legs, nor do you have the proper leverage to roll them over with your arms. If someone is in full mount on top of you and is slamming your head into the ground, would you not pull out and use a weapon (assuming you had one) in order to stop it from happening?

 

[dust1n]

Having hit my head against concrete a few times (atraumatically, I may add), it feels intense.

Sure. And "trauma" is also very intense.

If you are in a fight or an accident, you don't have the time to get a medical opinion about how seriously you are hurt. If you're in a fight, you can generally assume that the person you're fighting will continue to do more damage to you (or continue trying) until they leave or you render them incapable.

I'd say that it would be reasonable for both of them to fear for their lives. However, the law only protects one of them. The first person who committed assault (threat) or battery (hitting) against the other doesn't have protection under law.

I have no idea which one of them did that.

I'm on the same boat with ya here.

I've backed into tree branches multiple times, but never hard enough to cause a cut that bled. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman was backing up very rapidly? I've also tripped and fallen, but in order to trip and hit the back of my head, I have to be moving backward at the time.

So according to your theory, Zimmerman got those lacerations while retreating from the fight.

I think you meant, "according to my theory." Two people can be willfully fighting. That doesn't not imply that all they do is move towards one another.

In order to get punched in the back of the head, I either need to have my back to my opponent (which again suggests Zimmerman is retreating) or I'd have to be down (perhaps on one knee or on hands and knees) while an opponent hits me from above (which suggests Martin was attacking Zimmerman while at a momentary advantage).

Again, those are restraints you have created. People are prone to lower their head and guard it during a fight. You could be standing, trying to throw punches or defend from them, and still get hit back in the head.

Attack/defense/retreat/advantage/hit are not things that represent the totality of an altercation. It's possible Zimmerman could have went for a punch and then tried to run. There are literally hundreds of possibilities for action in a fight. It isn't just aggressor/victim. When it comes to fighting, both are perfectly capable at being at fault.

And if I've gotten punched, knocked over backward, landed on my back and hit my head, that also means I'm down and at a disadvantage while my opponent is still standing.

Okay. But if got knocked backward and hit your head, you are only down and at a disadvantage after being knocked backward, not before it. Trayvon could have got him down, attempted to restrain him, in doing so, threw a few punches. He could have saw the gun earlier then any of us know. Etc. etc.

Every

alternative you gave suggests that either Martin had an advantage (at least momentarily) or that Zimmerman was retreating.

You're doing a better job at producing reasonable doubt than I am.

I guess we read that one much differently.

Sitting down (or bending over) to catch his breath afterwards is a reasonable alternate explanation. It does not prove guilt.

Who said I was establishing guilt? I called out inconsistencies in the guy's story, nothing more. Again, considering how much blood is actually on the head, the lack of blood on the concrete, how much blood should be bleeding (from untreated lacerations and all), where the body is located, etc... are all indicators to me that the story provided by the defense is an entirely unlikely portrayal of the scenario.

Are you suggesting that Martin should have died where he was shot? According to his autopsy report, Martin likely remained conscious for a time.

Are you suggesting Martin was applying all of his weight to punching and head bashing, got shot through the chest and had a bullet lodged into his heart, then stood up, got off of Zimmerman, walked ten feet or so into the grass, then died?

Road rash occurs when you scrape your skin across pavement, not when you slam it directly into pavement.

Correct. Was Zimmerman's body completely limp, or did he likely flail?

Both sides are using emotional appeals, because both sides lack facts. But a lack of facts for both sides leads to reasonable doubt.

Again, no disagreement.

 

[Awoon]

And, once again, you have a right to your opinion ... so long as you realize it as something other than fact. You persist in confusing the two.

Every posting in here is OPINION, whether it's religious, criminal or judicial. Including YOUR OPINION.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just like with the O.J. Simpson trial, the verdict will be swayed by public backlash rather than by the evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I know nothing of bashing. Again, I find it hard to believe no blood managed to exit the head onto the concrete via bashing.

There was heavy rain that night. Any blood would have been washed away in minutes. Florida rain is no joke.

The damage on the back of the head does not indicate to me bashing.

How do you propose it got there then? The angle of the gunshot wound shows Martin was in full mount, which is the perfect position for bashing someone's head into the ground. Also, the cuts on the back of the head were closely grouped in a wide formation, and shallow, which is consistent with road rash/concrete scrapes.

I don't know what the prosecution claimed; I wasn't in the courtroom. I'd have to wait until court transcripts leaked before I could answer your question.

The trial's on TV.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, no matter how the racists/righties want to spin it.

When people raise the issue of race or politics where it's not relevant, their credibility should be considered questionable.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, no matter how the racists/righties want to spin it.

I am neither racist nor conservative, but I believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense. This issue has nothing to do with race or politics, regardless of how the media wants to spin it.

Zimmerman claims self-defense but seriously, why would a grown man need to defend himself from a child, for crying out loud? That argument doesn't hold water.

You're right; why would a pudgy 40-something year old have to defend himself against a 17-year-old athlete over 6 feet tall?

 

[dust1n]

Blood did accumulate later, so perhaps the flow was slight enuf that none was detected on the concrete, particularly since contact from up-&-down bashing would've been intermittently brief.

So perhaps it was, perhaps it got washed away in the rain after 10 minutes, or perhaps multiple head slams on concrete didn't happen.

"Some Sanford officers were skeptical from the beginning about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him over and over again, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed he received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin uttered during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded contrived...

Within eight minutes, Mr. Martin was dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, his body crumpled on a stretch of grass behind a row of town houses. When the first officer arrived at 7:17, Mr. Zimmerman was waiting not far from the body. He raised his hands in surrender before relinquishing his 9-millimeter pistol from the holster in his waistband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/u...wed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=4&_r=0

According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" and continued to beat Zimmerman.[174] Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.[175][176][177]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#cite_note-190

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman

From the Wiki article....I ask because if such evidence were material, the prosecution would've used it. But I don't recall that. (I have only watched excerpts.)

I haven't been watching it, sorry. To know if something was not said would require to watch all that was said.

But a big problem is the lack of evidence; which was poorly collected by noob investigators, which is where the majority of this huge controversy started. The NYT paper above goes far into the poor job done on behalf of investigators.

No. But injuries & their nature are part of the picture from which we figure out what happened.

Indeed. One swing, or attempt to restrain Martin, seeing how he thought he was making a citizen's arrest, and Martin would have had the right to defend himself, and if he had saw the gun, he would have been justified in taking any measure to restrain Zimmerman.

He obviously attempted to confront him with a gun. Did he attempt to any way prevent Martin from reaching his destination? In the middle of the night?

 

[dust1n]

There was heavy rain that night. Any blood would have been washed away in minutes. Florida rain is no joke.

I know; I'm from there.

How heavy was the rain when the police were there... and the investigators.

Looks like it was raining. No puddles.

Some mist, but water isn't flowing over the sidewalk...

Cell phone doesn't appear to be wet at all:

How do you propose it got there then? The angle of the gunshot wound shows Martin was in full mount, which is the perfect position for bashing someone's head into the ground. Also, the cuts on the back of the head were closely grouped in a wide formation, and shallow, which is consistent with road rash/concrete scrapes.

As I mentioned, there are number of ways in which they could have got there. Getting punched in the face with the back of the head on the concrete would just as capable of opening flesh on the back of the head. I don't know how they got on the back of his head. I just find it very hard to believe someone could take as many punches to the face as he claimed, and get his head slammed 6 times into the concrete, and suffer such little damage to the head.

The trial's on TV.

I don't have cable.

 

[Karl R]

People are prone to lower their head and guard it during a fight. You could be standing, trying to throw punches or defend from them, and still get hit back in the head.

In all the time I spent sparring in the dojo, I never got hit (or kicked) in the back of the head. I got hit and kicked in the face and the side of the head, but never in the back of the head. Similarly, nobody ever lowered their head to where I could hit the back of it. If you're keeping your eyes on your opponent (which any semi-trained or semi-experienced fighter will do), the back of your head is always pointed away from them.

In the times I've been fighting under more serious circumstances, I've been hit in the back of the head ... but only by opponents standing behind me. I've also "hit" a couple people in the back of their head ... by slamming their heads into walls or floors.

Can you describe for me the situations where you've been standing in front of someone and either hit them in the back of the head or had them hit you in the back of the head?

Attack/defense/retreat/advantage/hit are not things that represent the totality of an altercation. It's possible Zimmerman could have went for a punch and then tried to run.

And how would Martin be justified in continuing the fight against a fleeing opponent?

If Zimmerman tried to run, and Martin prevented him from doing so, Zimmerman doesn't need to rely on "stand your ground." That's just a straight-up justifiable homicide defense.

There are literally hundreds of possibilities for action in a fight. It isn't just aggressor/victim. When it comes to fighting, both are perfectly capable at being at fault.

Are you saying that they could both ethically at fault, or legally at fault? Ethically, I can easily see how both can be at fault. However, I've read the Florida legal statutes (which I cited a couple pages ago). I'm not an expert in criminal law, but I'm not sure how both of them could be legally considered at fault. Read the statutes for yourself. See if you can come up with a scenario (within the facts established) where they're both legally at fault.

Trayvon could have got him down, attempted to restrain him, in doing so, threw a few punches. He could have saw the gun earlier then any of us know. Etc. etc.

If Martin saw the gun (without Zimmerman drawing it), felt threatened, attacked Zimmerman causing Zimmerman to feel threatened...

You've just established a scenario where neither of them is legally at fault. If that's the case, Zimmerman should be acquitted.

Again, considering how much blood is actually on the head, the lack of blood on the concrete, how much blood should be bleeding (from untreated lacerations and all),

To repeat I.S.L.A.M617, it was raining.

The prosecution made a big deal about it raining, as a reasonable explanation why Martin was covering his head with a hoodie. (I agree that it was a reasonable explanation for wearing a hoodie, but you can't suddenly ignore the effects rain might have in washing away or diluting blood.)

Are you suggesting Martin was applying all of his weight to punching and head bashing, got shot through the chest and had a bullet lodged into his heart, then stood up, got off of Zimmerman, walked ten feet or so into the grass, then died?

Given that the Red Baron (the German WWI ace) was shot through the heart with a .50 caliber machine gun round, yet still managed to deliberately land his triplane in a nearby field before dying, I'd say getting up and walking 10 feet sounds entirely plausible.

I called out inconsistencies in the guy's story,

Again, you sound like someone with zero real-world experience in this area.

When I was in my early 20s, I was mugged one night by three preteens. (I estimated that they were 12 or 13 years old.) The fattest one seemed about my weight (though shorter), the other two were smaller. The smallest one had a gun. The medium-sized one (maybe 125 lbs) managed to hit me in the temple hard enough to briefly knock me out. I took a few more hits and kicks (and returned a couple) before they grabbed my bag and ran.

The police showed up about 15 minutes later and took my statement. I told them what happened to the best of my ability.

Several hours later, I began to recall additional details which I hadn't told the police. I took the time to carefully write down the entire incident (including the new information) so I could give it to the police if they followed up.

There are significant inconsistencies between the story I initially told the cops and the story I remembered several hours later. Specifically, I remembered about 15-20 seconds that I didn't remember immediately after the fight occurred. I don't know why my recollection at the time was different than what I remembered several hours later. My best guess is that getting hit in the head probably interfered with my recall of the events. As the effects of the punch wore off, my ability to recall the events improved. My later recall did explain some of the bruises I had which the earlier version did not.

Similarly, the amount of details I remembered varied wildly. I could describe the kid with the gun in great detail (he was the center of my attention). I could only vaguely describe the other two. For the most part, I couldn't tell you what the kids said. I didn't think it was important, so I didn't pay much attention to it.

My testimony was inconsistent. I couldn't describe many ordinary details. That doesn't make me guilty of anything. It doesn't make the muggers innocent. It just means that human brains aren't as good at storing data as we'd like to believe.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I know; I'm from there.

How heavy was the rain when the police were there... and the investigators.

How heavy the rain was when the police got there is irrelevant. What matters is how heavy the rain was during the fight. We both know Florida rain doesn't stay heavy for long; the storms can be sporadic.

Looks like it was raining. No puddles.

It would be kind of hard for puddles to form on a slope or on thick grass. The downslope on the end of the sidewalk is there for that exact reason.

Some mist, but water isn't flowing over the sidewalk...

Might have been before the cops got there.

As I mentioned, there are number of ways in which they could have got there. Getting punched in the face with the back of the head on the concrete would just as capable of opening flesh on the back of the head. I don't know how they got on the back of his head. I just find it very hard to believe someone could take as many punches to the face as he claimed, and get his head slammed 6 times into the concrete, and suffer such little damage to the head.

Getting punched in the head multiple times also causes you to forget the exact amount of times you were punched in the head. Whenever I have a fight, the amount of strikes landed/thrown always feels like a lot more than gets put on the scorecard. As for the slamming, it's not as if he was laying limp and allowing his head to bounce off the ground; he would have been pushing up with his neck to resist. He wouldn't receive 100% of the potential impact on the concrete while resisting.