Tweet
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
ABC News reported last night that George Zimmerman sought medical treatment at a family clinic the day after he shot Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman. Photo by Seminole County Sheriffs / Wikimedia Commons.
According to the medical report, which was part of the court file made public yesterday, he requested the appointment to obtain a medical clearance to return to work. However, according to Wikipedia, he was employed as an insurance underwriter at the time of the shooting and attending his final semester at Seminole State College in their Criminal Justice program.
The diagnosis: a closed fracture of the nose, two black eyes and two cuts to the back of his head.
[Note: a closed fracture means that the fracture did not penetrate through the skin and black eyes are a common symptom of a fractured nose]
The Christian Science Monitor reports today:
As the Christian Science Monitor reported Tuesday, prosecutors in the Trayvon Martin shooting began to sketch an outline of their case against George Zimmerman on Monday, citing new video evidence, a long list of witnesses and experts, and hints of a trail of facts, forensic details, and witness observations that they hope will lead a jury to a second-degree murder conviction.
But after weeks of national introspection into what really happened between Mr. Martin, an unarmed black teen, the guts of the hefty Zimmerman file remain secret. The prosecution, for its part, wants to keep it that way, having asked Judge Kenneth Lester to waive Florida court transparency laws in order to keep some witness names secret.
ABC News with Diane Sawyer broke the story last night.
Portions of the medical report are visible in the background and highlighted in yellow.
Apparently, no photograph was taken of the injuries noted in the medical report, no Xray was taken of his head and the cuts on the back of his head did not require stitching. The only recommended after-care, according to ABC, was a recommendation to obtain counseling.
Since the report mentioned that Zimmerman was taking Adderall and Temazepam, he probably was seeing a psychiatrist for ADHD and, if he followed-up with that aftercare recommendation, he likely would have done so by informing his psychiatrist regarding the event.
There was no reference to a psychiatric report.
I also did not see any indication that the doctor at the family clinic prescribed any pain medication.
I am still waiting to see the autopsy report and the forensic report on the examination of Zimmerman’s gun and his clothing. According to Wikipedia, the police kept his gun. However, his clothing might have been returned to him.
Evidently, the prosecution does not want the autopsy and forensic reports released at this time. We will have to wait and see whether the judge orders them released.
154 Comments
Thanks to the editor for adding the photograph of Mr. Zimmerman to my article.
Am I the only one standing proudly raising my eyes to the almighty and thanking him with open heart for the many freedoms we enjoy as Americans?
The right to murder our fellow citizens with impunity
The right to openly bribe elected officials
The right to be fleeced by the financial community
We now have the American Holy Trinity to worship with moist eyes and patriotic salutes.
And anyone who doesn’t agree is just a commie, atheist bastard who will get what he has coming when we are in complete control.
God bless.
Thanks mason and recommended.
Thanks Mason for staying on top of this.
Trayvon broke Zimmerman’s nose (apparently); Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
Seems like a proportionate response, no?
/s
“proportionate response” is for upping the ante in a poker game. If (and we don’t know this is what happened, but if) someone was sitting on my chest punching me in the face and slamming my head on the ground I’d have no problem clubbing him (if I had a club) or stabbing him (if I had a knife) or shooting him (if I had a gun).
This is not good for the prosecution, although I’m sure they knew about it at the time charges were filed. Like Mason (thanks for the update, btw) I am still waiting to see the autopsy and forensic reports, and of course the “new video evidence.”
Just because you would do it does not make it right or legal.
I had a conversation with a close friend last night about the death penalty. I am against the death penalty because of the potential to execute an innocent. It’s a final solution that can’t be taken back.
My friend posed the question – “If you walked in on someone raping your daughter would you kill him?”
My response – “Probably. That doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make it legal. I would go to prison for it.”.
George Zimmerman should go to prison.
Of course you would. Everyone else would apologize for calling TM the “n-word.”
Mason, many thanks.
“Just because you would do it does not make it right or legal.”
True enough, although under those hypothetical circumstances I believe it is in fact legal. “Right” may be harder to judge, but would you lie there and get your head beat in if you had a gun?
BTW: that’s my stance on the death penalty, also, not that it’s relevant.
Right. if that were true, there would be about a gazillion dead people right now.
This is where we get bogged down in hypothetical stuff.
Pointless to try and hash this out and figure out what we would or wouldn’t do.
The man killed someone who was not killing him. After chasing him for minutes and presenting a threat. He’s apparently broke the law. We’ll see what a jury says.
Florida has a long-standing practice of filing police reports, witness interviews and forensic reports in the legal file, which any member of the public can access.
Therefore, it’s unusual for the prosecution to seek to prevent reports from going public. The stated reasons are that there already has been excessive pretrial publicity, many people already have formed firm opinions about Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, several people have been threatened with death and many witnesses are concerned about their safety.
This is not the only case in Florida that has had extensive pretrial publicity (e.g., Casey Anthony) and the redaction of names and contact information should be sufficient to protect witnesses from criticism and harm.
My guess is the judge and the lawyers will work out an agreement that the reports can be released subject to redaction. I will be surprised, if they do not.
If they do not, the news media will probably appeal.
Perhaps we will hear later today whether the reports will be made public.
Here’s a link to a CNN report regarding the evidence list filed by the prosecution in the Zimmerman case.
Muchas gracias, Boo.
2 issues here for me.
1 – If this were my kid, I would hope he did some damage to the thug before he was killed.
2 – I hear people trying to justify the thug saying, see it was self defense because Trayvon broke his nose etc. It’s kinda like rationalizing the actions of a rapist because the victim scratch up the rapist, pulled his hair, etc fighting off the attacker. Makes as much sense to defend the attacker here as it does with the Trayvon killing.
If the report from Zimmerman’s doctor regarding Zimmerman’s injuries is correct, all it proves is that Trayvon was able to stand his ground and do something to defend himself against someone who was following him and who appears to have provoked a confrontation with him.
Unfortunately, Trayvon wasn’t able to do enough to restrain Zimmerman before Zimmerman drew a gun and killed him.
I am not convinced that the injuries that Zimmerman sustained were sufficiently serious to justify the use of deadly force in self defense.
I also am not convinced that Martin initiated the use of force or that his use of force exceeded the amount of force that he would have been legally justified in using to defend himself against an assault by Zimmerman.
For the sake of argument, even if Martin was the initial aggressor and even if the amount of force he used was excessive, I do not believe Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself. His injuries are not serious and so, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Stalking someone, chasing him down and subsequently accosting him pretty much begs for a punch in the face in my book. If Trayvon would have been the one with a gun, he would have had the legal right to shoot Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman got his nose broken speaks more to him shooting Trayvon out of retribution than self-defense to me.
If someone was sitting on your chest, you probably would have a problem shooting him because you would not be able to physically put your hand in your pocket to get your gun.
So yeah, let’s see what the forensic evidence shows.
If it is now legal to kill someone because they were kickin’ your ass in a fight, sibling rivalry just took on a whole new meaning.
Right. I am having a very difficult time believing, and I am open to being wrong pending information to the contrary, that if Zimmerman had not had that gun, he would be dead or critically wounded today.
He was apparently not referred to an ENT doctor or other specialist for his nose- he was referred to mental health.
What is available in the released tapes is that Zimmerman was instructed not to follow Martin, and Zimmerman said, “These assholes always get away,” and he followed him anyway.
As others have pointed out, information is missing, unfortunately.
You’re welcome! Great summary of this development!
“I am not convinced that the injuries that Zimmerman sustained were sufficiently serious to justify the use of deadly force in self defense.”
Unless I misunderstand, the degree of injury sustained is irrelevant since, ya know, the point is to “prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” (emphasis added, see below) and all that is necessary is a “reasonable belief”. Continuing to assume that Zimmerman’s account is true I doubt you’ll find a jury of twelve NONE of whom find it reasonable to think having your head slammed on the sidewalk might result in “great bodily harm.”
BTW, don’t you love the way CNN is still referring to Zimmerman as a “White Hispanic,” LOL?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.–A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm
“Stalking someone, chasing him down and subsequently accosting him pretty much begs for a punch in the face in my book. If Trayvon would have been the one with a gun, he would have had the legal right to shoot Zimmerman.”
That’s not very consistent, hotdog. You say Trayvon would have the legal right to shoot Zimmerman for chasing him and accosting him but Zimmerman had no legal right to shoot Trayvon for physically assaulting him?
Moreover, I think the courts would disagree with you that being accosted gives one the legal right to respond with physical violence of any degree.
“a “reasonable belief”.”
So, if someone says to me, “I’ma kick your ass, bitch. I swear, I am going to kill you with my bare hands,” and I believe that person, can I just on ahead and shoot and kill the person?
It is probably an ethical topic that could be argued for days. Wondering what, exactly, the legal question is here.
Adderall
Temazepam
It would seem as though these drugs are contradictory in their effects, one being an amphetamine like stimulant and the other a hypnotic agent.
And given this with Temazepam -since we are all speculating- “Temazepam, similar to other benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs causes impairments in body balance and standing steadiness in individuals who wake up at night or the next morning. Falls and hip fractures are frequently reported. The combination with alcohol increases these impairments.” whose to say that Zimmerman’s injuries weren’t self inflicted?
I’m being totally consistant. Whoever initiated the contact is the aggressor. The guy doing the chasing initiated the contact, unless you think they were playing tag. Trayvon was defending himself.
Ridiculous.
“can I just on ahead and shoot and kill the person?”
I expect you’d be charged and can’t promise you’d be acquired, but you would have a valid legal defense to take to the jury.
The people saying a broken nose doesn’t justify deadly force are missing the point. That widow who shot a knife-wielding burglar not long ago suffered no physical injury at all, so by their standards she was unjustified and is a murderer who should be in jail.
“Wondering what, exactly, the legal question is here.”
See 776.012 above and also Mason’s earlier article about the hypothetical “reasonable man.”
The legal test is not whether a person believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The test is whether a person REASONABLY believes that the use of deadly force is NECESSARY to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
The test is objective, not subjective. That is, whether a reasonable person would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
The word “necessary” imposes another requirement. That is, there was no other alternative.
So, the answer to your question is “no.”
“Whoever initiated the contact is the aggressor.”
And you draw no distinction between the verbal and the physical?
Hypothetical:
Z: “Hey, punk! Who the hell are you and what the fuck are you doing here?”
T draws a pistol and shoots Z dead.
hotdog: “If Trayvon would have been the one with a gun, he would have had the legal right to shoot Zimmerman.”
Now, that’s ridiculous…
Evidently, pending the release of additional information, including the autopsy and forensic reports, we are not going to agree on this case.
I believe you are applying a what-I-would-have-done test, which is subjective, not objective.
The test is objective and the use of deadly force must be necessary.
I do not believe that a reasonable person would have concluded that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
See my comment to Crane Station @26
Adderall ; “Given that persons with ADHD are more likely to engage in risky or dangerous behavior, it has been suggested that stimulant medications for persons with ADHD may actually result in lower incidence of premature death”
Temazepam ; “Because benzodiazepines can be abused and lead to dependence, their use should be avoided in people in certain particularly high risk groups. High risk groups include people with a history of alcohol or drug abuse or dependence, emotionally unstable patients, people with severe personality disorders (such as Borderline Personality Disorder).
It would seem as though these drugs are contradictory in their effects, one being an amphetamine like stimulant and the other a hypnotic agent. And given this with Temazepam -since we are all speculating- “Temazepam, similar to other benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs causes impairments in body balance and standing steadiness in individuals who wake up at night or the next morning. Falls and hip fractures are frequently reported. The combination with alcohol increases these impairments.”
Trying to post a comment but it just never appears though such does show up when looking at my handle under ‘find people’; seeing if this one does.
Who was looking for the fight?
The guy sipping on tea and popping skittles, or the guy who said “They always get away?”
I make no distinction between verbal and physical contact, because the guy with the fucking GUN, is the guy who initiated the confrontation/threat and followed up with it by shooting his quarry.
It worked.
Wow, no idea about what is occurring but here is what shows up in ‘find people”; whoa; just noticed that there is now an new ‘banner’ at the top of the ‘reply’ box when it opens for typing the reply and it has an ‘x’ box in upper right that when clicked on gets me a ‘clean’ reply box.
Point I’m trying to make i\s that Zimmerman’s injuries could have been self inflicted(I can speculate as well as the next person):
Adderall Temazepam It would seem as though these drugs are contradictory in their effects, one being an amphetamine like stimulant and the other a hypnotic agent. And given this with Temazepam -since we are all speculating- “Temazepam, similar to other benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs causes impairments in body balance and standing steadiness in individuals who wake [...]
Adderall ; “Given that persons with ADHD are more likely to engage in risky or dangerous behavior, it has been suggested that stimulant medications for persons with ADHD may actually result in lower incidence of premature death” Temazepam ; “Because benzodiazepines can be abused and lead to dependence, their use should be avoided in people in certain [...]
No, it didn’t as again I tried and it failed after I cut and pasted from what you can see under my handle in ‘find people’.
Those drugs contradict one another and Zimmerman’s injuries could have been self inflicted as a result in original response I was putting the wiki links in; this doesn’t.
“I believe you are applying a what-I-would-have-done test”
No, just encouraging people to personalize the situation for better understanding.
“I do not believe that a reasonable person would have concluded that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”
As you say, we’re not going to agree on that part. For what it’s worth, my thinking goes like this:
A) The guy losing a fight so badly that he is on the bottom with a broken nose getting his head pounded is not going to stop his assailant with only his bare hands: something more is “necessary” to avoid further injury.
B) Pounding a man’s head on a sidewalk can fracture the skull.
C) A skull fracture is a serious and potentially fatal injury.
Ergo, the use of deadly force (that being the only option available: pity he didn’t have mace or a taser) is “necessary” in order to “prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”
What is your line of reasoning which leads to the conclusion that there was no danger of great bodily harm or no necessity for deadly force?
There is nothing yet in evidence (at least available to the public) that proves Zimmerman sustained these injuries at the hands of Trayvon Martin.
Also, a single blow to the face could result in a broken nose and Zimmerman falling backward, injuring his head.
There are a myriad of ways this could have played out. None of us were there, and personalizing the situation to better gauge hypothetical scenarios and outcomes helps nothing.
The evidence of a broken nose and a lacerations on the back of the head, if indeed inflicted by Trayvon Martin, proves only one thing; Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the face once.
Your ‘pounding’ and ‘pounded’ declarations are not in evidence and in fact are not supported by the evidence at hand.
What it’s beginning to look like is that when George confronted Trayvon, Trayvon punched him in the face. Zimmerman got knocked on his ass, pulled his gun, and killed Trayvon in response. That would be a far more reasonable conclusion to draw based on the factual evidence presented in this medical report.
“Who was looking for the fight?”
Good question, and the answer is we don’t know yet. Z claims he lost T who then doubled back and attacked him. Hopefully the movements of both men can be established at trail.
“I make no distinction between verbal and physical contact, because the guy with the fucking GUN, is the guy who initiated the confrontation/threat and followed up with it by shooting his quarry.”
In other words, my hypothetical above is correct: in your book it’s acceptable to respond to verbal challenges with deadly force.
No, I think in your book, it’s okay to respond to someone innocently walking down the street by chasing them down and shooting them.
“Trayvon punched him in the face. Zimmerman got knocked on his ass, pulled his gun, and killed Trayvon in response.”
And why is the eyewitness who saw one man on top of the other lieing?
“No, I think in your book, it’s okay to respond to someone innocently walking down the street by chasing them down and shooting them.”
How very odd, considering I’ve said nothing of the sort whereas you’ve twice said exactly what I described your position as.
If you’d like to save time, just cut to the chase and start calling me names.
The only thing you’ve described are your own hypotheticals.
My position is that Zimmerman was the aggressor which is absolutely clear from his own actions.
“Zimmerman was the aggressor which is absolutely clear from his own actions.”
Not if he abandoned the pursuit and T then instigated a second round: then he would be the aggressor, but that’s not the point.
The point is that physical assault is not a legally acceptable response to a non-threatening situation, and don’t tell me Z’s gun made it sufficiently threatening. Was the weapon drawn or holstered when he confronted T? Was it even visible beneath his jacket? What did Z say to make T think he was about to be violently assaulted?
As you can guess from my response to C-S, if Z ran up to T brandishing a weapon and shouting “I’m gonna get you sucka!” I’d be totally behind T’s blowing the fool away: just show me that’s what happened.
Since when is being stalked, chased, and confronted physically or verbally by someone non-threatening?
Since when is it threatening enough to make someone “reasonably believe that (deadly) force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself”?
So, there’ s no way to verify that the police are not corrupt and that he really did have all these injuries?
ubet, I have a different screen (don’t know about the IP) and ID, and I see your comment here on this screen.
The police AND the medical personnel all in it together, willing to commit felonious perjury and risk their careers (not to mention prison)?
The defense too stupid or sloppy to verify the medical reports?
Fox News, that bastion of penetrating insightful journalism, reports
Unfortunately, they do not say anything about the gunshot wound. That is, they do not say whether there were any lacerations around the edge of the wound or stippling. This is necessary information to determine if it was a contact wound, fired from close range, or fired from a distance.
Would also be useful to know if he had any gunshot residue on his hands. That is, whether there was a struggle to get control of the gun?
Also would be useful to know the angle and direction of the fatal shot in order to estimate where the gun was when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
I would also like to know whether Zimmerman was using hollow point ammo.
None of these questions have been answered yet.
I would not be so dismissive, if I were you.
I live in the south and I do not believe it is possible to overestimate the possibility of systemic corruption in the criminal justice system.
Amen, brother. Felonious perjury is the norm, not the exception in some places!
But hey. At least the corruption is reliable!
Oops, rude of me. Some links to back it, just random, there’s this:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/100212-01.html
and this:
http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/2012/feb/21/2/former-geneva-police-officer-charged-perjury-ar-3273604/
and this:
http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7991&Itemid=199
That’s just the first page of google.
…and the sad thing is, most of the time official misconduct and perjury goes uncharged.
Incidentally, we still haven’t see the EMT’s report, you know, the guy who treated Zimmerman at the scene of the shooting. I believe that report will be more credible than the family physician’s report the next day.
“None of these questions have been answered yet.”
An excellent reason why no one should have reached any conclusions yet.
This changes nothing as to the charges or the likelyhood of conviction – albeit the killer gets a bit of good PR.
If you chase someone down, start a fight, and get the worst of the fight before you kill the person you attacked, you do not get a get out of jail card for “self defense” – even if you are the only witness and can claim the other guy started it. In my opinion the evidence as to who was going after who is solid – but lawyers can make a jury cry for a murderer (see OJ – and it matters not if it was his son holding the knife).
> An excellent reason why no one should have reached any
> conclusions yet.
So, you do admit the possibility of police corruption and medical and legal collusion (which, btw, is historically common in the racist South). Good on ya. I myself also have no evidence either way.
“If you chase someone down, start a fight, and get the worst of the fight before you kill the person you attacked, you do not get a get out of jail card for “self defense””
You’re right, but did Z start the fight? Going up to T and demanding to know what he was doing is neither violent nor justification for violence, especially if Z identified himself as neighborhood watch and kept his weapon holstered (two more things we don’t know).
“In my opinion the evidence as to who was going after who is solid”
If you’ve seen a map retracing both men’s movements I’d love to get a link.
go to ‘find people’ and put in my ‘handle’ and you’ll see some of what I was trying to post.
For Mason: Scrapped knuckles could have come from most anything so it would seem that mention of such is an attempt to say that there was an altercation. The REAL problem is the faulty police work; that pretty much says that Martin’s family -like those victims of OJ’s- will have to rely on a civil suit for any sort of ‘justice’.
I was actually referring to the specific forensic issues Mason raised, but, yes: a conspiracy between the police, prosecution, and medical personnel is theoretically possible.
Another possibility is that the police found Z and T sitting on a curb chatting and sharing Skittles, shot T dead from pure racist bloodlust and set Z up to take the fall…
Huh. That’s odd.
NBC news tonight said the autopsy report stated the gun was an intermediate distance from Martin. That, to me, does not indicate that Zimmerman shot Martin as he sat on his chest.
> Another possibility is that the police found Z and T sitting on
> a curb chatting and sharing Skittles, shot T dead from pure racist
> bloodlust and set Z up to take the fall…
I believe, if you were to take a vote, that only a pure racist could or would conjure up that scenario as a “possibility.”
There was only person here who had a choice not to have a confrontation. That was Zimmerman.
He was told not to follow Martin. He was told not to leave his vehicle. He was told not to carry a gun on patrol. He was the one who chose not to do those things. Martin was walking back from a convenience store in a neighborhood he was staying in. He did not follow Zimmerman, he didn’t have a dispatcher telling him not to leave his vehicle, he didn’t have a gun. He was chased by a man he did not know for reasons he had no knowledge of.
THE DEAD PERSON IS THE INJURED PARTY WHO DID NOT DESERVE THIS.
”
NBC news tonight said the autopsy report stated the gun was an intermediate distance from Martin”
Key. If it is true.
Ah, you’ve reached the name calling stage, I see.
princss6 @princss6
RT @msnbc: Autopsy: #TrayvonMartin killed by gunshot from ‘intermediate range’ http://on.msnbc.com/IYVuXA #Zimmerman
Intermediate means close range, which is anywhere from 0.5 centimeters to 1 meter, probably determined by stippling around the edge of the wound.
Stippling is unburned gun powder that widens and dissipates the farther out from the wound.
Then WTF is close range?
“He was chased by a man he did not know for reasons he had no knowledge of. “
Yep. Now please tell us what happened when they met…
The essential question is who started the physical altercation? and so far as I’m aware no one knows. Do you?
Tell me again how any of this happens if Zimmerman follows orders and 1.) doesn’t follow Martin, and 2.) doesn’t leave his vehicle. It doesn’t.
The altercation was started by Zimmerman, following and approaching a person he was told not to.
Bit more on close range here:
“Determining the Distance of the Shooter from the Victim
Examination of the gunshot wound can help determine many factors involved in the shooting, including the distance of the shooter from the victim. Gunshot wounds can be classified based on the range from the muzzle of the gun to the target. These classifications include contact, near-contact, intermediate, and distant wounds.”
http://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/
The MSNBC report this evening that Crane Station referred to states:
In other words, Trayvon did not have skinned knuckles from hitting Zimmerman.
Sounds to me like the abrasion on the ring finger may have been caused by the bullet, such as might be the case, if he had his hand between his chest and the gun.
Kind of like a defensive wound.
Has Zimmerman told us yet what law Trayvon Martin broke? What was he doing besides walking in a neighborhood while being a black young man? Was he guilty of wearing the wrong attire? Maybe it was that “furtive” kind of movement that NYPD uses to justify the arrest of black men. (three times the number of black men that live in NYC have been stopped for “furtive movement”.) What exactly was Trayvon Martin getting away with?
> Ah, you’ve reached the name calling stage, I see.
Ah, you don’t deny the description, I see. You must have conducted that vote with someone in your vicinity.
To get more specific about the distance, the forensic firearms expert needs Zimmerman’s gun, a bullet from the same batch the fatal shot came from (which he will probably get from the clip), close-up photographs of the wound before it was cleaned for the autopsy, and Trayvon’s clothes.
The expert will experiment by firing the gun from different distances into similar clothing and a dummy to match as closely as possible the rings around the wound and on the clothes.
“The altercation was started by Zimmerman, following and approaching a person he was told not to.”
He wasn’t “told not to” but it doesn’t matter: what matters is (to repeat myself with helpful emphasis added) who started the physical altercation?. If Z went up to M and started throwing punches he should be convicted of murder 2, at least. If Z went up to M and said, “I’m the Neighborhood watch, who are you?” and M started throwing punches that’s a different story.
So who’s the one who escalated the situation to physical violence, thurbers? Z broke no laws in following or approaching (if he did) M: the law-breaking started when someone got physically violent, which leaves us with the classic question “who threw the first punch”?
Still need more information but, if Zimmerman were telling the truth, I would have expected a contact or near contact wound.
That did not happen.
If the distance is intermediate then the angle of entry becomes even more crucial.
Gotta go fight traffic: thanks again for the updates.
See my answer @65.
As I have said before, who threw the first punch is irrelevant, if Zimmerman gained control of Martin and pushed himself away from Martin.
He cannot lawfully use deadly force at that point because deadly force is not necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury and no reasonable person would have used it.
Yes, I agree.
You are probably correct, but only “if Zimmerman gained control of Martin and pushed himself away” and what reason is there for thinking that happened? We may know once we have ALL the details on the bullet wound: right now all I have to say it’s odd that Martin was shot in the chest.
If they were on the ground with Martin on top I’d expect the entry point to be in his side, if they were standing and wrestling over the gun I’d expect it lower (in the abdomen) or at a sharp angle if it hit the chest.
We can speculate all we want provided we don’t reach conclusions until the totality of the evidence is presented. When you were practicing law did you ever see jurors who had obviously made up their minds even though the trial wasn’t over?
“You must have conducted that vote with someone in your vicinity.”
Yes: I consulted Me, Myself, and I (odd numbers prevent deadlock) and the unanimous decision was that you’re hilarious for being willing to accept that Z killed M for Walking While Black and the cops are covering it up, but only a “pure racist” would think that a cop might kill M for Walking While Black.
The three of us are going to go ROFLOAO now: you can spend the time thinking up more digs that don’t scratch the surface.
Satire is probably the most brilliant form of social study- certainly my favorite. Well done.
I’d change that to “the right to murder black people with impunity”. Kill a white man and you WILL go to prison.
The injuries are not relevant to anything but sorting out the details of the event. The salient point is that if Zimmerman hadn’t been stalking and harassing the guy, (against police orders even), he wouldn’t have gotten those injuries and Martin would still be alive.
Zimmerman ignored instructions from 911 operator not to pursue this kid. He deserves jail time. He created the circumstances that lead to Trayvon and him fighting to begin with.
Any member of the public can access the prosecution’s file? That’s amazing!
As a one-time defense lawyer, I can’t really approve of that. It might have made my job easier in some ways – prosecution only has to let defense attorney look at their file, and defense may not make copies of anything, some places aren’t even supposed to take notes, just look at what’s in it.
But I do think it can often be dangerous to allow witness names to be made public; it puts them in position to be intimidated (at the least), especially in the digital age when people are so easy to find and verbally/electronically attack.
I have no problem with not knowing the names of the witnesses until they testify (as a member of the public, in this case, I mean). I mean, really, imagine what danger they’d be in from Zimmerman’s supporters?
And some of those folks are scary and disgusting.
Actually he was “told not to.”
Here’s what the news reports say:
George Zimmerman told police he shot Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person. He was told to stay in his car and an officer would be there shortly. But Zimmerman exited his car, fought with Martin and eventually shot him. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested.
Haven’t read all the comments yet. I did read earlier reports of this today with some care. This strikes me as selective release of info. What about the “bruised” skin on Trayvon’s knuckles? Anything from his fingernail clippings? DNA match?
The reports I read on Zimmerman’s medical condition did not reference anything about when his injuries were sustained.
Who started it?
We’ll never know since one side is dead.
Reminds me of family lore. Happened either before I was born or when I was an infant so can’t be held responsible for its veracity.
Brother who was 10 years older than me came home one day the worse for some fisticuffs. Mother asked him who started the fight. Gene responded: I hit him back first.
Spot on. And even if the police had not told Zimmerman to stay in his car and leave Martin alone, it is still clear from his own statement the he escalated the “situation”, the “situation” being the fact that a young, black male was walking back from the store. We always need to start from the position that it has been established that Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong or even behaving suspiciously. That is the context into which all of the following events fit. Zimmerman was a self important rich kid playing cop with a loaded weapon. Martin was just unfortunate to come across him that night.
Didn’t some state, maybe Texas, where it is legal to carry, pass a law that you can legally shoot someone on the street if you “feel” threatened? That’s plain scary to me.
It’s been answered and even stipulated to. Zimmerman started it. Martin was guilty of walking home from the store. That’s it. Zimmerman turned a kid walking back from the store into some kind of suspicious activity in his mind. Who threw the first actual punch will never be known but Zimmerman clearly and admittedly started the altercation.
Mason, forgot to say thanks for an excellent post. This case really bothers me and we may never have justice.
Hmmm. I don’t think that’s a law here. Maybe AZ or Oklahoma.
Could be. I just don’t remember.
Fair enough.
But my point at 89 is do we even know that Zimmerman’s injuries came from a fight with Martin, or a fight earlier in the day? I’m always suspicious with partial release of info.
Oh absolutely, that is a very valid point! Sorry, just wanted to point out that the altercation was definitely started by the guy who is still alive. Didn’t mean to sound dismissive of your excellent observations.
I don’t either. You been doing okay?
Got home from the hospital today and feeling so happy to be here and talk with everyone. Surgery is a b*tch. But it was benign and that’s what counts. Thanks for asking.
If he had a broken nose the black eyes came from that. I’ve broken my nose twice and I always got two black eyes. I broke horses for a living and sometimes you get bucked off. I didn’t get hit in the eye either time. My nose bled profusely for quite a while, too.
But the earlier photos we saw from when he went to the police station did not show black eyes or a swollen nose. He didn’t even have a bandaid on his head. My face looked awful for weeks after I broke my nose. And it didn’t happen later either. I knew immediately that my nose was broke and by the time I drove home my face was pretty ugly.How did that little kid beat up a much larger man with a gun? He must need to go back to cop school if he let that happen.
Havn’t read all these comments but clearly there is a good deal missing. May never be able to piece it all together. One thing strikes me as pretty important: Z was told not to pursue Martin. He will have to explain that. I’m sure he will say something like, he sneeked up on me from behind. So I had to shoot him. Gonna be hard for a jury to buy that I would think.
Do you think Z will testify?
May depend on how bad things are going at that point in the trial. I am pretty sure he would rather not.
cwaltz:
“He was told to stay in his car“
“instructions from 911 operator not to pursue this kid”
Margaret:
“told Zimmerman to stay in his car and leave Martin alone”
“against police orders”
thurbers:
“He was told not to follow Martin. He was told not to leave his vehicle.”
Here’s the recording, who wants to try and find any of the above in it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOyOvWrL7Zw&feature=related
“Zimmerman was a self important rich kid”
I didn’t know that: how rich is he and what’s your source?
If the prosecution can’t support that Z has a case. He will argue he was doing his job.
Good to hear. :)
He’s the son of a retired federal judge. Use your brain.
Just for comparison, my two year old ‘joyously’ threw her head back and broke the crap out of my nose…..little bleeding, but a great big “S” on my face. NO black eyes. Little actual pain. Doctor had to re-break my nose to set it after the swelling went down. NO black eyes. None of which absolves Zimmerman of anything.
There will be a plea bargain. “Time served in hiding.” This case will not come to trial imo.
Someone mentioned “just doing his job”…..but wasn’t this an ‘assumed’ position of community guard? Was Zimmerman trained and certified and employed as a community monitor….or did he just take it on because he was so righteous?
Hey, as soon as you start pounding someone’s head on the sidewalk, you’ve lost it. You are trying to kill the other person, and you can’t expect the person being pounded to just die. If it can be shown that is what happened, no jury will convict.
It is very tough for Martin’s parents, but that’s what’s going to happen.
Posssibly, but given all the press coverage do you think they would take the chance of a light sentence in a plea bargain?
I just love this thread. Getting all the exercise I need by jumping to conclusions. By tomorrow morning I should be in great shape.
Not a difficult defense. Evidence: the statute itself; police investigation; no arrest; the state did not file charges until — the defense can frame the delay in its most effective manner; selective character witnesses.
Then Z might have to do community service and pack two pistols and a shotgun.
What press coverage? This would have disappeared from sight a long time ago if a few lefty blogs hadn’t taken it up. We (i.e. leftie blogs) can be easily countered (passage of time & other outrages will do that; whatever happened to Sami el Arian?
Well, was he told not to pursue or was he not told that? That is where it will all start from. There are add ons after that but did he go after Martin?
Righto. Shoot at litterers while picking up roadside trash.
It was all over the cable news shows it seems for weeks. We even had it in local newspapers several times a thousand miles away from the scene.
> Yes: I consulted Me, Myself, and I (odd numbers prevent
> deadlock) and the unanimous decision was that…
…You concocted a hilariously implausible scenario only a pure racist would concoct in public? Check.
> but only a “pure racist” would think that a cop might
> kill M for Walking While Black.
I think you would support the cop or any other racist for killing M for Walking While Black — but that isn’t what I asked you to consider, especially since there is no evidence at all that a cop was present at the time of the murder. If you have such evidence, please provide a link to it.
> The three of us are going to go ROFLOAO now: you
> can spend the time thinking up more digs that don’t
> scratch the surface.
My digs are spot-on; it is unfortunate that you don’t address them, preferring to answer questions which weren’t proposed based on fantasies that must disregard the known, provable facts to achieve your desired frisson.
I stand corrected then. I got rid of my TV a couple of months ago. I thought I trashed TV after shooting and followed it on leftie blogs, but apparently I got that wrong.
Even so, corp media’s attention span is not long either. There are no blond nubile women in this case.
If it’s shown by recordings or testimony that he was told not to pursue, it will also have to be shown that he acknowledged that order or advice, that he responded to it in some way.
Your hypothesis is that Zimmerman covered his ears and said: Lalalala, I don’t want to hear that?
During either the Alito or Roberts conf hearings, Ted Kennedy told Chairman Arlen Spector he sent him a letter with bah-blah in it, and Spector said (I paraphrase), ‘Just because you sent me a letter doesn’t mean I read it’.
Not sure bc I didn’t read all prior comments, but aren’t medical reports supposed to be confidential. Some law that was allegedly enacted a decade or so ago? Does the release of this info raise anyone’s (other than mine) suspicion antennae?
Very funny.
A little stretched analogy if the communication was oral, though.
Every thing about this case is suspicious IMO. And I think it will, in the end, be just be a smelly pile of injustice.
Really.. injustice for Travon who paid the ultimate price because Z had already made up his mind to confront him and do what was needed to get him out of his (z’) turf… Sounds like a petty gangsta to me..
I’m going with the talking with Skittles into the gated community while black hypothesis, as my Occam’s razor, while willing to entertain all alternatives.
One of my key stink detectors is what Sherlock Holmes referred to as the dog that didn’t bark. IOW, what’s left out of the reports. Such an attitude led me to the accurate conclusion on Iraq WMDs (ya mean the inspectors went to the 400 sites least likely to have WMDs first?), i.e. none. So I’ll stick with my null hypothesis on Zimmerman v. Martin until evidence on other side proves out.
“He’s the son of a retired federal judge. Use your brain.”
You make an assumption, present it as fact, then tell me to use my brain? LOL! Irony Meter rating: 9.5
It actually started at 8.5, but you got an extra half point for not knowing the difference between a federal judge and a state magistrate, and an extra half point for not knowing that Virgina Magistrates earn less than the national average (about $150,000).
Congratulations, Margaret: your spouting un-researched bullshit and then accusing others of not thinking has earned you the highest IM rating yet bestowed.
Bask in the honor…
> You make an assumption
Hey, don’t harsh on Margaret for assuming you had a brain.
Heh: not bad, SoO.
It does nothing to support her bogus claim or diminish her embarrassment at being caught out, of course, but it is kinda funny and got a 8^)
on the 911 tape, zimmerman was asked whether he was following the “suspicious” person, he said yeah, he was told “we do not need you to do that,” he acknowledged it and said “ok.” so i don’t know why ironymeter thinks zimmerman was not told not to follow martin.
“i don’t know why ironymeter thinks zimmerman was not told not to follow martin.”
Are you fucking kidding, or are you seriously claiming that “we do not need you to do that” is equal to
“He was told to stay in his car“
“instructions from 911 operator not to pursue”
“told Zimmerman to stay in his car and leave Martin alone”
“against police orders”
“He was told not to follow Martin. He was told not to leave his vehicle.”
???
Of course, the real kicker is this: what makes you think he ignored the dispatcher and chased Martin down? Z states he abandoned the pursuit and was returning to his car. Sure, he has ample reason to lie, but listen to the tape (if it’s your first time just relax: it will only hurt for a moment)
2:13, car door slams shut
2:17, voice wobbles, heavy breathing
2:22, dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” Z says “Yeah”
2:26, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that” Z says “Okay”
Z starts giving his information and says, “He ran.”
2:39, heavy breathing stops. Z spends another minute and a half talking to dispatcher
Why do you think I keep stressing the importance of tracking their movements?
what would make me think zimmerman ignored the dispatcher is that his story, or rather stories, doesn’t seem to be supported by what we’ve learned so far. martin told the girlfriend that he was trying to get away from zimmerman and she heard the verbal exchange between them right before the phone went dead — her account is not consistent with zimmerman’s that he had turned back and martin pursued him. it sure looks like zimmerman’s story about martin pounding his head on the pavement is not true because, given that the autopsy report says the gun was not fired at close range, it does not appear that martin was sitting on top of zimmerman when he was shot.
Why not? We do it all the time in the never-ending lovin’ “war on terror.” Those furriners don’t even have to say “down with Amerika” we drone them just because we can.
Everyone is oh so worried about one death, as the Peace Prize Winner and the Peace Prize Winner in the Wings continues/will continue unending death and killings every single day. Yup.
Twain, we were concerned. Just the other day I was looking for you, didn’t want to stock you about or anything!
So glad you are back and on the road to recovery!
Good point!
Apparently, HIPPA does not apply to documents in the court file. Also, Zimmerman wanted the next-day report released. As for Martin, well, it is an autopsy report.
This was my thought – HIPPA does not extend to public court filings. As this is now publicly documented evidence all it takes is some intrepid reporter to pull the court file at the clerk’s office.
TIP – if you want to be taken seriously, don’t use Wikipedia as a reference.
Why is that? Wikipedia has a wealth of paid researchers that vet information before it is posted.
I’ve read many sources of information in this case and I can say with considerable confidence that the Wiki article is one of the best and most reliable sources of information about this case on the internet, given what information is available to the public.
I started a new comment, but due to its length, I decided to post it as a new article.
Thanks to all who commented.
Slamming his head on the ground? So, no bruising, no x-ray for possible head injury, no mention of concussion or possible concussion, and two cuts that didn’t require stitches — the medical report doesn’t really fit with that description of what happened. So far I’d have to lean towards unjustified killing.
I posted my new article.
See link below to:
Forensic Firearm Evidence May Solve Zimmerman Case
Interesting that the shooter was apparently under the influence of amphetamines at the time of the shooting.
“given that the autopsy report says the gun was not fired at close range”
Oh, it says that, does it? Can we get a quote, maybe even a link?
Well, apparently you want it both ways.
One: “Are you seriously claiming that ‘we do not need you to do that’ is equal to…” Now, I have problems with your logic here–your melodramatic disbelief that geez, “we do not need you to do that” could actually mean “don’t follow him,” and all of the possible behaviors that would cover the comphrehension of such words, seems a little, well, weak. Frankly, I’m in disbelief of your disbelief. But on to the contradictory matter:
Two: You then use a timeline of the events as an indication that Z actually did attempt to follow the logic of “we do not need you to do that” as meaning “avoid pursuit and get in your vehicle.”
Which is it:
1. That “we do not need you to do that” is either so clear or so vague in meaning that it would be completely ludicrous to believe that it means “avoid pursuit and get in your vehicle”?
or
2. Z did follow–illogically, by your argument #1–the meaning of “we do not need you to do that” as meaning “avoid pursuit and get in your vehicle”?
It would help if you weren’t so “ironic,” in the Alanis Morissette sense.
If it went over your head let me try something simpler:
1) People here are exaggerating the fuck out of what the dispatcher actually said in order to make Z look bad and I have no respect for sensationalized distortions.
2) Even worse, they also appear to be wrong about the facts. Apparently Z did break off his pursuit as the dispatcher suggested (NOT ordered) although he had no obligation under law to do so.
Follow that?