I was going to leave it here until we saw more of the trial next week but I decided to call you on these unsupported claims: You mean like, "25 or 30 times", I don't recall (see past quotes of PD transcripts), or like "several, more than a dozen" I don't recall? The punches to the nose are in addition to the claims of his head being bashed into the concrete over and over: Since no one said poor memory made one a killer, this is a blatant straw man. I saw that, I asked you how Martin was bashing Z's head on the concrete from a standing position? That's what your link said, the shot occurred with Martin "standing over the shooter". Given that odd inconsistency, I thought your link might have been a little too non-specific to be of much use determining M's position from the autopsy. Clearly it does, but there's no sense arguing with you on this one. You don't seem to be able to even say it was possible Z held M at gunpoint, let alone comment on what the evidence supports. Apparently for 40 seconds, yes. Why wouldn't he? He felt he was doing his neighborhood watch job properly. If you have law enforcement knowledge, how about you draw on the forensics part of that knowledge base. The ME testifying about Z's injuries was a forensics expert. But there's a more concerning comment of yours here, that you think a person has a right to kill someone for a single sucker punch is not only sad, it's also not what the law says. Z would have had to have been unable to get away for a self defense case. Without the multiple punches and head slams, that means Z can't explain why he didn't just run away. According to the prosecutor today summing up the reasons the case should not be dropped, Z had 2 minutes of inexplicable whereabouts in his story of getting out of his SUV to look for an address. I don't see the case hinging on Martin's actions. He may very well have stopped to see if Z showed up once M turned on the sidewalk 'T' toward his condo. It makes sense. He asks Z, "why are you following me", Z responds aggressively with "what are you doing here?" Maybe Z grabbed M's shirt and M punched him. Since Z is lying about what happened (from the evidence) we'll never know what exactly triggered the initial contact. At that point, nothing prevented Z from running away. There were no multiple blows and neither man had defensive wounds. The only thing that explains screaming for help and not fighting back or running away is being held at gunpoint. Just because you can't stand it that some kid punched you and broke your nose, (Martin's actions were somewhat understandable if he was afraid of Z), the law requires you try to get away under the circumstances in question.
If the evidence supported that story, yeah, but the evidence supports the conclusion said story is a lie. Have you read your own link: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/10/george-zimmerman-murder-trayvon-martin-autopsy
I'm pretty sure I've been asking you for the physical evidence you believe supports Z's story. Last I looked you haven't provided any. You haven't answered my questions about your citation re the autopsy that said Martin was standing. You have no physical evidence of multiple blows. I'm open to your evidence, JJ, but instead of posting any you dodge and shift goal posts.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/05/30/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-autopsy Morgan here says "intermediate" is 2 inches to a couple feet. The ME who did the autopsy defined it as 1/4 inch to several feet. Morgan describes a scenario of Martin standing over and, coming down toward Z. That's not the story Z tells.
Often times, at least for me and with those I speak with, it raises the bar considerably. The idea that I now have the ability, with just a quick pull of a trigger to end life is frightening. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people say that they used to be a hot-head, or used to mouth off, etc.etc. and then when they decided to carry, all that stopped because of the realization of what an escalation might mean. Moreover, those who have taken CWP classes or other types of training, are usually taught the legal definitions and what does and does not justify such actions. Going back to my post a few days ago, that's why I called Zimmerman an absolute idiot, because he went into a situation that could only escalate when he didn't need to.
Okay Ginger, lets start slower, so we can understand this. Do you believe the physical evidence shows that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin? Yes or no?
Here's another resource for the soot and stippling findings on the autopsy. It will be a shame if this ME wasn't experienced enough to narrow down the distance: The last line suggests one doesn't just throw out the powder burn evidence on the clothing. The muzzle was in contact with the clothing. If your shirt is bunched up it may not be tight against the skin even if a person is flat on the ground. The forensics expert on the clothing powder burns said the two shirts were touching each other. The point is, the gunshot residue fits either position, with Z on top of M or M on top of Z. No smoking gun here.
Okay, so in your opinion how many punches are required and also, how much trauma does a person need to receive before they can defend themselves? 3 punches? Cracked skull? Is it possible that Zimmerman feared for what Martin was going to do to him if he let him finish? If Zimmerman feared that Martin was going to kill him, he had every right to shoot him. The actual injuries do not correlate to threat of bodily harm or death by a victim. If a woman is assaulted by a man in a dark alley, even if he only punches her once and smashes her head against a wall, I'd say she fears for her life and should use a firearm to meet the threat.
You are making a straw man argument. The degree of injury is not relevant without context. You don't need any injury if someone is holding a gun on you to feel your life is threatened. So context matters. The argument is not, could Z have feared for his life given the story he tells? The argument is, the story he tells is a lie. And the physical evidence proves he's lying.
No, it's not. He has a legal right to have a gun with him and approach someone. If he unholstered before he approached, then it is a crime. Having a gun with him does not constitute a crime. Only if he presents the gun in a threatening manner while he approaches is it a crime in and of itself. Otherwise, you've just set a legal precedent that anyone carrying a weapon cannot leave their car while armed, and the Supreme Court will overturn that in a heartbeat based on the Second Amendment.
And if he pulls his gun when someone punches him, even a sucker punch that knocked him down, he has an obligation to still retreat, does he not, even with gun pulled? He has an obligation not shoot out of revenge, right? So the key here is, Martin was unarmed so he couldn't have pulled a weapon on Zimmerman. In order for Zimmerman to have been trapped as he claims, two things are possible. Martin was simply sitting on Zimmerman holding him down. Or, Martin was sitting on Zimmerman pummeling him. Otherwise, nothing kept Zimmerman from running away, gun pulled or not. And someone was screaming help for about 40 seconds according to the tape. The physical evidence rules out Zimmerman being pummeled. Martin's hands, his knuckles, and Z's injuries simply do not corroborate Z's claims. He wasn't being pummeled. He's lying. The physical evidence doesn't lie, people lie. People make mistakes, they make unreliable witnesses, they even make mistakes as incompetent experts. But we have two different unrelated experts looking at two different pieces of evidence. The ME: no injuries to Martin's hands. Nothing like you'd expect to see if someone was pummeling a person. And we have the forensics specialist ME: Z's injuries do not show pummeling, they do not show head bashing again and again on concrete. They show one or two punches that caused any injuries at most. Could have been punches too weak to cause any injury. But there was no evidence of head bashing over and over into concrete. There was no evidence of more than one significant blow to the face. Zimmerman was not being prevented from running away. He could have even pulled his gun and retreated. No scenario makes sense with Z screaming for 40 seconds if he was not being pummeled. And he wasn't.
Sounds like this case should be closed already. I guess it's clear as day and Zimmerman is guilty. Ill post again and give you the phone number of the lawyers and judge so you can let them know what you've found out. I'm sure the prosecution will be grateful.
Should I consider that answer equivalent to giving up, JJ? I thought you were going to post the evidence supporting your conclusions. Let's see, so far, we agree M punched Z. That's a pretty weak case for self defense given running away was an option. What else you got? Feel free to wait for the defense case next week. I do think we've run the course here so far.
No. There is no obligation to retreat. Florida has a stand-your-ground law that says you do not have to retreat. You can not press an attack, i.e. become the attacker once someone else begins to retreat, but you do not have any obligation whatsoever. That is also separate from Castle-doctrine laws, where there is no duty to retreat in your house. Some states have neither law and in those states, there is a duty to retreat. Also, interestingly, this case can't be retried at a federal level because the supreme court has ruled that in federal cases, there is a stand-your-ground premise that a person does not have the duty to retreat. So no. If a person punches him in the state of Florida, and he is in reasonable fear of his life (being hit once and dropped the ground would probably justify that), there is no legal premise by which he is banned from drawing and firing (provided again, the person that hit him does not turn and walk away). tl;dr version: "He had the option of running away" is not prosecutable in stand your ground states, which Florida is.
Stand your ground was waived in this case, and there's a reason why the defense isn't using it. They are using self defense and different legal rules and standards apply. Zimmerman to argue self-defense, will not seek 'stand your ground' hearing. It's complicated since O'Mara has suggested he could still seek a SYG hearing after the trial. So even if Z does go for the hail mary SYG hearing after the trial, he has one huge problem. He has to take the stand and his story simply cannot withstand cross examination. And there are two big problems with his story that won't stand up on cross. He was following Martin, he did approach first (I'm not going to re-litigate that, I posted the evidence earlier in the thread), and, the lies he's told about being pounded and slammed will not hold up to cross exam given the lack of injuries both to himself and to Martin's fists. O'Mara knows that. I posted the FL self defense statute earlier in the thread. He had an obligation to flee. It's a different legal standard than stand your ground.
That's not the reason they waived the SYG law. Zimmerman’s defense has never raised the “Stand Your Ground” law for one simple reason: with Zimmerman on his back and Trayvon Martin holding him down, he had no option to retreat. That's it. People are allowed to use force to protect themselves when they reasonably believe it is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves.” As far as the testimony of the Jacksonville medical examiner, Valerie Rao, that Zimmerman injuries were “insignificant” is irrelevant. A broken nose, a head being slammed into cement, and punches to the face may not have left Zimmerman incapacitated. The important question is whether such an attack with someone on top of him would leave Zimmerman to “reasonably believe” that there was a threat of “imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” The prosecution didn't prove this 'beyond a reasonable' doubt and in certain instances, helped the defense. Now the defense will put the last nail in the coffin on this case and Zimmerman, and the rest of the nation can move on.
If that was true. The evidence contradicts that truth. You never address that. You only argue from the position Z is telling the truth or one can never say he wasn't. But the forensic expert looking at Z's claims refuted them with the fact his injuries don't corroborate his story. You do know how this works, right? Z clams X. Forensic evidence shows X could not have occurred. How is it you continue to argue as if Z's story was supported by the physical evidence?
Here's your problem, Ginger. You're arguing that Zimmermans account doesn't fit the evidence, but the evidence doesn't prove the prosecution, either. The only thing you are proving is that Zimmermans account had inconsistencies, and that doesn't say anything about what I posted above. Zimmerman's account may be exaggerated, but the evidence still supports his claim of self defense. Guilty of lying? Sure. Guilty of second degree murder? No. See what I mean, the only thing you are focusing on is that Zimmerman over-exaggerated how many times he was struck. That's irrelevant, because we both agree he was struck multiple times. So with that in mind, read my post above. Zimmerman may win this case not because of his statements, but in spite of them.
Sorry, but choosing not to utilize the PEREMPTORY SYG hearing does not waive the SYG law or the automatically make Zimmerman responsible for retreating. All it means is that he doesn't get immunity from prosecution. You're reading way too much into it. It doesn't then necessitate him retreating. In a trial the law is still Stand Your Ground. And I'm sorry, but here is the actual law Title XLVI 776.013 Justifiable Use of Force. Home Protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [this means other than home or car] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. That is the law. There is NO responsibility to retreat.
You might want to Google what a hand looks like after a fight, and what a face looks like after a fight. Z got hit once or twice, the expert that testified to that supported her conclusions very specifically with the evidence. And anyone who has seen people after real pummeling can readily see that Z did not receive one. This is where your problem comes in, JJ. Once you establish Z was only struck once or twice, you can no longer explain how Z was the one yelling for help for 40 seconds. Z has no defensive wounds, there was no evidence that should have been there that M was holding Z down. If Z was only hit once or twice you could still make your argument, he could have still feared for his life. But you cannot explain how he was held down for 40 seconds screaming "help" if there was no struggle. And the evidence says there was no struggle, just one or two punches and a gunshot.
I didn't say waiving the SYG hearing meant Z could not seek to apply it later. I said he cannot use it without getting the stand. And his testimony will not hold up to cross exam. In order to prove self defense Z still had to have no option to retreat. I don't profess to be a legal expert, my expertise is medical. However, I can read: Pretty detailed discussion of the legal principles here. The state has to prove Z was the aggressor, however, there is also the matter of reasonableness even if M was the aggressor.* Z has 2 minutes he can't explain if he did not follow and approach M. Z cannot show it was reasonable he didn't wait for police, the 'looking for an address' ruse doesn't hold up. There are so many things Z did prior to the struggle that were not reasonable. And most important of all, Z's story the pummeling is why he couldn't get away. The pummeling is a lie, we know that. Even people arguing in this thread for Z's acquittal are saying one or two punches and resulting fear still make for self defense. And the elephant in the room, with no pummeling, no evidence of pummeling and no evidence of a struggle beyond one punch how do you explain the 40 seconds of screaming? The instructions to the jury by the judge will be interesting. *I believe the evidence shows Z was the aggressor but it is not as 'beyond a doubt' as the fact Z lied about the threat he was under.
The ME did not say there wasn't a 'struggle', you are extrapolating. A struggle does not necessarily leave marks or injuries. Isn't it possible that during those seconds where Zimmeman is yelling for help, they are struggling and fighting to get to the now-exposed gun? It's reasonable to assume that if you are wrestling with someone to get to your gun, you would be screaming for help. The evidence does not prove or disprove this possibility.
