ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: Day 2, Tuesday, June 25.

[GreenStormCloud]

Instead of starting a bunch of different thread about aspects of the trial and what witness say, how about we combine them into one master thread?

[GreenStormCloud]

1. Crime scene technician taking the stand.

Six years with the Sanford police. Appears well qualified. Has worked several hundred crime scenes.

[bunnies]

2. No reaction at all to seeing the body of the kid he shot to death.

wow.

[pacalo]

7. Particularly Zimmerman. Just another day of being subjected to this persecution.

[bunnies]

11. Yeah. Poor baby. My heart bleeds.

of course.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Apparently Trayvon's mom had to excuse herself a couple of times. nt

[bunnies]

14. I can imagine.

I was more referring to jackass Zimmerman. I should have been more clear. I feel so sorry for his (Trayvons) family. This must be horrible for them.

[KurtNYC]

10. no reaction to anything. Just that sad puppy look and blinking

It's like he is on some kind of emotion-Botox

[bunnies]

13. no kidding.

How many xanax did he take today? Geez.

[winter is coming]

3. Thanks for doing this. n/t

[Erose999]

4. Any knock knock jokes or other "zingers" today?

[bunnies]

5. Not a single bruise on Trayvons hands!

Did you see that?

[Lurks Often]

20. Medically there is some question whether bruises would have had a chance to form

given that Martin died almost immediately. No blood flow would likely prevent bruises from forming. Expect that to be addressed at some point.

[bunnies]

21. Fair enough.

No bruises on Zimmermans hands either though. Kinda rules out a fist fight.

[Lurks Often]

22. Or it means Zimmerman never got a punch in.

Zimmerman's injuries are a matter of record and are listed on the EMT report from the scene starting on page 183 here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf

[bunnies]

23. Or he didnt bother to try to.

Why punch when you can just pull a trigger?

[Lurks Often]

24. The general rule is that one can use deadly force when you are in fear of

death or grave bodily harm.*

A person does NOT have to wait to be injured. Do you believe that having your head struck against the pavement repeatedly would cause you to have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm?



*Some states have a looser standard and this standard does not apply to law enforcement which has a somewhat looser standard.

[bunnies]

25. Can you prove that he had his head struck against the pavement repeatedly?

Or are you just asking me to take his word for it...

[Lurks Often]

26. EMT's report

Zimmerman's injuries are a matter of record and are listed on the EMT report from the scene starting on page 183 here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf

I don't remember ever reading Zimmerman's actual statements that are out there, certainly not since last year. I have been looking at this based on the physical evidence, the letter of the law and the testimony so far of the State's witnesses.

[bunnies]

27. If I have a broken wrist...

it doesnt mean that you snapped it in half. Nor does Zimmermans head injury mean that Trayvon smashed it repeatedly on the pavement.

[Lurks Often]

31. True, but the burden is on the State to prove

that the injuries to Zimmerman's nose and back of his head were NOT caused by Martin as Zimmerman stated to the police.

And barring some third party who else could have caused those injuries? The defense will be calling several witnesses that will testify they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

I have nothing invested in what the verdict is as long as it determined by what the ACTUAL evidence, both the physical evidence and the witness's testimony, shows.

[uppityperson]

32. Why was none of Zimmy's blood or skin or dna found on Trayvon?

[Lurks Often]

35. Don't know

There has been testimony that it was raining that night and that Martin's body was left uncovered for at least 15 minutes. Something else the State and/or the defense will address

[bunnies]

36. For all I know,

Zimmermans wounds could have been self-inflicted in some way. If I'd just shot someone & was panicking, I dont know what lengths Id go to to cover my ass.

Im very interested to see what the witnesses have to say, as you are. Im sure there is a lot we dont know yet. Or will never know.

[Lurks Often]

38. It will almost certainly prove to be interesting trial n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Do you have any evidence that Z's wounds are self-inflected?

Wild accusations are not evidence. Our court system works on evidence.

[bunnies]

44. Hence the use of the word *could*

Speculation is all anyone is doing in this thread. We get to discuss things that *could* be. This is DU, not court.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. I do not consider wild speculaton to be helpful. N/T

[bunnies]

47. Thanks for joining in the discussion, then.

[Skittles]

85. it was TRAYVON who was fighting for his life

and who ultimately LOST his life do the cowardice of a vigilante cop-wannabe

[GreenStormCloud]

93. That is for the trial to determine. N/T

[grantcart]

224. Only one person was pursuing another person.

If Zimmerman was in fear for his life then why did he not reverse his course and return to his car?

[GreenStormCloud]

226. Hard to do that if you are on your back being beaten.

That is Z's claim, that TM had him on his back. He would not have been in fear of his life before that.

NOTE: The current testimony is casting serious doubt on Z's claim.

[grantcart]

227. Yes I understand that.

I admit I cannot be objective about this and shouldn't comment as I don't know the details as well as you do.

However my point is that IF repeat IF Z was on his back it was his legs that got him into that situation. His paranoia or racism or whatever. He got out of his vehicle. I have been in dozens of similar type of situations and I have called the police and kept myself out of the action. But then I don't carry a gun. I believe that Z's handgun gave him the courage to engage a situation that had he not been armed he would have been much more cautious he would have made the call to the police and stayed in his vehicle.

[GreenStormCloud]

229. I agree with you.

I have a Concealed Handgun License. Texas training is very similar to Florida's. Z went against CCW training and against neighborhood watch protocol. We who carry are supposed to be legally held to a higher standard of accountability. We are supposed to anticipate and avoid possible confrontations. At a minimum, I think Z should be convicted of manslaughter. Murder 2 is iffy.

[Just Saying]

49. I agree with you.

It seems to me there's about as much proof that Trayvon hit him as there is he hit himself. It's also just as possible he got hurt tackling or trying to physically stop Trayvon.

I also agree we may never know what really happened.

[Just Saying]

56. Sorry but the state doesn't have to prove a negative.

How exactly does one prove what didn't happen? Lol

Zimmerman has to get his story out and since he likely won't take the stand, he'll have to do that with evidence. The jury cannot assume Martin caused those injuries without evidence. There are several ways those injuries could have happened and even if Trayvon hit him, it doesn't mean he had the right to use deadly force. The prosecution will certainly be calling witnesses to make it's own case.

We'll see what witnesses say but one of the 911 callers had Zimmerman on top. And for what it's worth, I believe it was Martin screaming for help and even it if wasn't, I don't see how the conversation Zimmerman claims happened went on while one of them continuously screamed for help. I flat out don't believe his story.

I'm curious, what is it about this case that makes you want to defend Zimmerman?

[Lurks Often]

66. I don't think I am so much defending Zimmerman as

merely keeping an open mind and looking at the physical evidence and the testimony, so far of the witnesses. If the evidence supports a guilty verdict then so be it.

The burden is on the State to prove things did not occur as Zimmerman has stated. As I have stated in other posts it pretty much boils down can the State prove a) Zimmerman started the physical altercation by pushing or otherwise striking Martin or b) that he showed him the gun and said he was going to kill him or c) that Zimmerman was not in fear of death or grave bodily harm when his head was being struck against the pavement (or prove the wounds were self inflicted).

Based on what is CURRENTLY known, I don't think the State can prove those things at this point.

[Bjorn Against]

68. Wrong, Zimmerman has to prove it was self defense

Read up on affirmative defense, it shifts the burden of proof. The state only has to prove Zimmerman killed Martin, Zimmerman has to prove it was justified.

[Lurks Often]

69. Incorrect. If he had invoked the Stand Your Ground defense

then it would be an affirmative defense.

This is a straight self defense approach by the lawyers. The burden is on the State, not Zimmerman.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

73. It's actually a Use of Deadly Force defense.

Self-Defense would be as simple as punching back after being punched. Zimmerman does have an affirmative duty to show he was justified in using deadly force (i.e. a gun) to defend himself.

Basically it's a three step analysis:

1. State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant killed the victim. (Not in dispute in this matter)
2. If #1 proven, Defendant can prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in using deadly force.
3. If #2 proven, State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged justified use of deadly force is inapplicable (for example, if the Defendant provoked the situation wherein he ultimately used deadly force.)

[Lurks Often]

74. And we're right back we're we started

Was Zimmerman in fear of death and grave bodily harm when his head was being struck against the pavement?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

76. If it only struck once or twice, I would say no.

If it was struck repeatedly as he claims, then perhaps yes. But the evidence doesn't suggest that it was hit repeatedly, so.....

[uppityperson]

77. And now you are back to an unproven theory to base the rest on.

[Bjorn Against]

88. You are wrong, all claims of self defense are an affirmative defense

An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense, insanity, and the statute of limitations.

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

If you were correct and prosecutors had to prove a negative in every murder trial and definitively show that the killer was not facing a threat it would be virtually impossible to prosecute any murder case, the words "self defense" would become a get out of jail free card because it is virtually impossible to prove someone did not feel threatened. There are very few cases that are ruled justifiable homicide and the reason for that is because the burden is on the defendent to prove justification, if the burden was on the state to prove a negative the majority of murderers would get off because they would all use the self defense claim and the prosecution would rarely be able to prove they did not feel threatened.

[Just Saying]

96. It seems an open mind would see that an unarmed kid

Didn't deserve to be followed and subsequently killed. I'd hate for our laws to encourage vigilantes. But we can agree to disagree.

I think you're assuming that the jury will somehow just hear Z's version and go from there but the defense has to tell his side with witnesses and physical evidence. Who started it and showing the gun will be hard to prove but may not be necessary because in the end they have to show that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way Z did. And I don't think a reasonable person would have done most of the things Z did that night.

Also, catching Z in lies and inconsistencies to his story will go a long way to convicting him.

As always, a lot depends on the jury.

[Lurks Often]

103. Quite simply none of us have seen all of the evidence.

"An unarmed kid didn't deserve to be followed and subsequently killed" and if Martin did nothing to start the fight then we agree, but the opposite side of the coin is that Martin (hypothetically) did not have the right to start a fight and/or put Zimmerman in a position where he felt he was in fear of death or grave bodily harm. I am not saying that is what happened, but it remains a possibility.

As to the following part, by itself following someone is not illegal under Florida law and testimony from the police liaison to the neighborhood watch contradicted herself somewhat saying both that neighborhood watch people should not follow them and then she said it was ok to follow them at a distance. It is very easy for ALL of us, including myself, to have the luxury of some 14 months to think about what we do in a similar situation.

I will speculate and say that Zimmerman never intended to get close to Martin and even that Martin never intended to allow Zimmerman to get close to him and that when Zimmerman came around the corner ran right into Martin at which point things went south. Again that is speculation.

[uppityperson]

108. If Martin thought his life was in jeopardy, he had no right to put Zimmy in a position

where HE was in fear of death? Are you seriously saying it was ok for Zimmy to defend himself by shooting if he felt in fear of his life, but not ok for Trayvon to defend himself by fighting back if he felt in fear of his life?

[GreenStormCloud]

115. The fear has to realistic.

There are two stories.
Story one: They were both standing up, fighting, and Z shoots TM. If that is the case, then Z did not have a reasonable fear of his life, but TM did have.

Story two: TM had knocked Z down and was straddle of him, pounding Z's head into the concrete. If that story is true, then Z had a legitimate fear of his life. At that point, it doesn't matter how it started as TM has no right to pound Z's head against a hard surface, nor even to continue to hit on Z.

[uppityperson]

119. Zimmy can shoot Trayvon to stop him, but Trayvon can't knock Zimmy down to stop him? Oh. Kay.

[ManiacJoe]

124. Knock down, yes.

Continue to pummel or beat Z's head into the pavement after he is down, no.

[uppityperson]

129. Ah, and there it is. You believe Zimmy's claim about that.

[ManiacJoe]

141. Not sure how you jump to any conclusion about what I

may or may not believe.

Z's claim is the current story that has offered. The state gets to offer their story, currently in progress.

[GreenStormCloud]

130. That is not what I said.

Please don't twist my words. TM doesn't get to sit on Z and keep beating on him. There is HUGE difference between knocking Z down, and continuing to pound on him.

[uppityperson]

132. And you believe Zimmy's take on that. I don't. No blood or injuries on Trayvon showing he did that.

Only a known liar's word.

[Lurks Often]

116. And how did Zimmerman put Martin in fear of his life?

There were no physical injuries listed in Martin's autopsy (aside from the gunshot wound and an abrasion on his left hand) that would suggest Zimmerman struck him.

Absent physical injuries, the only other thing I can think of is Zimmerman showed Martin the gun in some fashion and that said that he was going to shoot or kill Martin. Which by the way, would be a remarkably stupid thing to say and attempt to do when Zimmerman knew the police were already on the way and could arrive at any second.

[uppityperson]

117. Stalking a 17 yr old on a dark night might do it. There were no injuries on Trayvon's hands that

would suggest he struck Zimmy? I agree.

[ManiacJoe]

123. Being followed on a dark night might make you scared,

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

but it does not come close to meeting the bar for being "reasonably afraid for your life".

[uppityperson]

131. I agree, it does. It certainly can. eom

[ManiacJoe]

139. Typo in my post may change your agreement.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. You may wish to check the autopsy report.

There was an abrasion on one of Martin's knuckle's.

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/TRAYVON-MARTIN-AUTOPSY.pdf page 7

[uppityperson]

174. A 1/4 by 1/8 inch abrasion of unknown age on 17 yr old's 4th finger knuckle. And he supposedly was

holding his hand over Zimmy's mouth while punching him in the nose and slamming his head repeatedly on the pavement. Let me check my hands. OMG!!!!! I've several abrasions larger than that! OMG!

As I said there were no injuries on Trayvon's hands that would suggest he struck Zimmy.

I would expect more injuries and, come to think of it, some blood or dna on his hands if he struck Zimmy like Zimmy says he did. But the report says there was none.

[Just Saying]

121. I have a hard time understanding an armed man fearing for his life.

I'll speculate that running into Trayvon was exactly Zimmerman's intention since he was following him. I didn't say that in itself is illegal but stupid, hell yeah it was.

I don't need months to know I wouldn't follow someone I thought was up to no good, I don't carry a gun and I don't take the law into my own hands.

The dispatcher did tell him they didn't need him to follow. Legal or not, that part is not speculation.

What does the neighborhood watch say about being armed? (We both already know, right?)

[Lurks Often]

127. The dispatcher also said that it was a suggestion and not an order

and that he (the dispatcher) could understand that when he asked which direction Martin was running, that Zimmerman thought the dispatcher meant that he should get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone. I don't think that the dispatcher's testimony helped the prosecution.

The neighborhood watch says not to, but that is for liability purposes so they don't get sued and not a law.

As for fearing for his life, that part does not seem to have occurred until Zimmerman was on his back having his head struck against the pavement. Until that happened, if it did, Zimmerman had no reason or right to take the gun out of the holster.

[Just Saying]

133. I don't know what the legality of what a dispatcher tells someone.

But I think a reasonable person stays in the car. I think the jury heard the dispatcher "suggest" he not follow but he did. I think that helps the prosecution.

"The neighborhood watch says not to, but that is for liability purposes so they don't get sued and not a law."

Or perhaps so they don't overstep their authority or kill someone? And I don't know if its legal, but I'll bet any cop you ask will say not to carry a gun on neighborhood watch. You're not a cop! I certainly don't want my neighbors pretending they are.

Maybe you defend Zimmerman because you think it's okay for him to patrol his neighborhood armed?

Perhaps it occurred to him he had a gun when he tried to detain Trayvon and an altercation broke out so he either got pissed or overreacted and shot him. We don't now if Trayvon banged Zimmerman's head on the pavement or exactly when he removed the gun from the holster.

We don't really know and may never know.

[Lurks Often]

136. According to the dispatcher's testimony

he has NO legal authority to tell people what to do, if he did, it would open up the police department to lawsuits.

Neighborhood Watch has no authority whatsoever.

I believe that has been reliably reported that he wasn't patrolling that night, but on the way to the store for something. Regardless under Florida law he was entitled to carry a firearm and did not break any law in doing so.

As for the rest, we'll see what the trial brings.

[nomorenomore08]

153. So what gave Zimmerman the "authority" to follow/stalk somebody with a gun?

Considering especially that Martin's father lived in that neighborhood and Martin wasn't doing anything "suspicious" that night?

[ManiacJoe]

154. One needs no authority to follow someone.

Armed or not.

[nomorenomore08]

157. That's why I put "authority" in quotes. As in, what the hell was his justification?

Seems awfully flimsy any way you slice it.

[ManiacJoe]

159. Z says he followed Martin because Martin was acting suspicious.

[nomorenomore08]

161. Suspicious how? Wasn't he just walking back to his father's house from the store?

People seem so eager to believe Zimmerman's account of things, in spite of the man's obvious paranoia and aggression. Doesn't make a whole of sense to me.

[ManiacJoe]

162. I take it you did not follow the previous media reports?

If I remember the reports correctly (not a safe bet), Z said M was hiding his identity under the hood, walking slowly and looking at houses, black skin in a mostly white neighborhood.

In my opinion, this profiling could work in some cases. However, in this case, the rain explains the hood, and being lost explains the method of movement through the neighborhood.

[nomorenomore08]

166. But once again, you're leaning heavily on Zimmerman's account of things.

And I see no reason, frankly, to believe the guy so readily...

[ManiacJoe]

167. I am not leaning on anything. You asked for Z's reasoning.

I gave you Z's reasoning to the extent I remember it.


I also pointed out the potential flaws in it.

[nomorenomore08]

168. Okay. Fair enough. I'm not upset with you or anything.

Just aggravated that Zimmerman, who to me is so obviously an untrustworthy asshole, has been given the benefit of the doubt by so many people. And I wonder what that says about their own fears and assumptions.

[ManiacJoe]

169. I think that the problem most people have with this case

is that what little evidence there is and what little witness testimony there is do not readily contradict the story that Z is telling. Because of this, there is a good chance that Z will be found "not guilty", which is the same as "innocent" to many folks.

[uppityperson]

176. Z also said TM looked like he was on drugs and those assholes always get away.

[Skittles]

194. nothing but fear and ignorance

stuff the NRA *THRIVES* on

[Lurks Often]

235. He didn't need any authority

it is not against the law to follow someone and it was not against the law for Zimmerman to have the gun. As to the suspicious part, the police liaison to the neighborhood watch testified that Martin's behavior that night would be considered suspicious under neighborhood watch guidelines.

[Skittles]

252. Trayvon went to the store for ice tea and Skittles

and was MURDERED by a gun humping FREAK

[GreenStormCloud]

158. Z quit following when the dispatcher said that it wasn't needed.

Lots have folks have the time line mixed up, even after hearing the testimony.

Forensics will have a lot to say about what happened. And there is the eyewitness, Mr. Good. It all happened it front of his door. I am confident that the trial will establish what happened.

[Just Saying]

173. I don't believe he stopped following Trayvon. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

152. I guess my only question is, why are you so quick to believe Zimmerman's version of things?

He's certainly given no indication of being an honest (or honorable) man. And he, not Martin, was the one with the previous criminal record (for assault/battery IIRC).

[Lurks Often]

232. I didn't say I believe him

I just haven't see enough evidence to decide he is a murderer.

And he was not convicted of assault & battery or at least not felony assault & battery or else he never would have gotten a pistol permit.

Additionally if you think a person's history is relevant to what happened that night, that goes both ways.

[LiberalAndProud]

240. Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman killed him. That makes Zimmerman a murderer. Not in question.

The question is weather the murder was justified. Is Zimmerman culpable? No question. Did he kill Trayvon? No question. Is he a criminal? That is the point of contention.

Zimmerman killed a man. That makes him a murderer, like it or not.

[Lurks Often]

241. There is a very important legal difference between murder and killing

Murder is a crime, killing a person is not necessarily a crime. The trial will determine if he was indeed a murderer or this was a case of justifiable homicide.

[LiberalAndProud]

242. This will determine if he will be held accountable.

If we were talking about an auto accident, there would be some percentage of culpability applied in Zimmerman's case. He did everything to place himself in a bad situation. In the case of rape, the question is always asked, what was she doing there at that time, why did she put herself in that situation? It must not be rape.

A guy packing a gun ... the question becomes who threw the first punch.

If you don't realize there's a really bad double standard at work here, I have no hope of convincing you.

[Lurks Often]

243. This isn't an auto accident

This is a murder trial. Under the law, Zimmerman did nothing wrong by following Martin while carrying a gun.

[LiberalAndProud]

245. And your open mind misses the point.

Nevermind.

[uppityperson]

175. "we don't need you to do that" means "get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone"?

1984 all over again and AGAIN you miss one important point.

"As for fearing for his life, that part does not seem to have occurred until Zimmerman (SAYS HE) was on his back having his head struck against the pavement." Again, Zimmy is the one saying that. Still no proof it occurred.

[GreenStormCloud]

188. He got out of the truck BEFORE the dispatcher said that.

That was well established in testimony yesterday.

[uppityperson]

193. "Zimmerman thought the dispatcher meant that he should get out of the car and see which way Martin"

"Zimmerman thought the dispatcher meant that he should get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone. " is the quote of Lurks Often I am replying to. In case you missed that.

[GreenStormCloud]

201. That was in testimony yesterday.

You are arguing against the testimony of the dispatcher, and of the recording. The timeline is well established and not disputed by either side.

[uppityperson]

204. "we don't need you to do that" means "get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone"?

THAT is what I am arguing. Does "we don't need you to do that" mean "get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone"?

Lurks Often, who I replied to wrote "Zimmerman thought the dispatcher meant that he should get out of the car and see which way Martin had gone". "We don't you need you to do that" means "get out of the car and see which way he went"?

[Lurks Often]

233. Take it up with the dispatcher, that was his testimony

that he could understand how his asking Zimmerman which way Martin went could be misunderstood as asking him to get out of the car. The "We don't need you to do that" statement occurred after Zimmerman was already out of the car.

You have injuries to the back of the head (even if not severe enough for you) and reports of several witness's seeing a person in dark clothes on top of another person.

Yes it was dark, yes it was raining. Was there enough ambient light for witness's to tell the difference between dark clothes Martin was wearing and the red clothes Zimmerman was wearing? That has not been addressed.

[uppityperson]

247. Nope. It was your quote. War = Peace.

[GreenStormCloud]

146. About an armed man fearing for his life.

First, I agree with the rest of what you said. But an armed man can reach a situation where he is in fear of his life and needs to draw and fire. I am NOT saying that it happened to Z, or that it didn't. I want to watch the evidence to decide that. But IF you are on your back and some one is pounding your head against the concrete, then your life is in danger. The concrete and their hands are their deadly weapons. Lots of posters here seem to think that if you have a gun, then your life can't be in danger. It can. When I was in the Army I learned ways to quickly kill, with my bare hands. Never think that because someone isn't armed that they can't be dangerous. According to FBI statistics, more people are killed, annually, by hands and feet, than by all the rifle deaths in the U.S.

[Just Saying]

179. Please don't use the hands and feet line.

Yes if you only count rifles, "other" is more but all guns blows that bs out of the water. (So to speak).

Those sort of not wrong but not really right gun talking points sink the credibility of those who make them.

As far as Zimmerman, I don't believe him. He probably won't testify but we'll see what the jury sees of his versions and what they believe.

[GreenStormCloud]

186. My point was that an unarmed man can still be deadly dangerous.

Was the Army lying when they taught me how to kill quickly with my bare hands? BTW - I was 17 at the time I joined the Army.

[Just Saying]

190. No but most people haven't been trained to do so.

And an armed man is vastly more dangerous. In 2011, 8,583 murders were committed with firearms and 728 with hands, feet etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

So who needed self-defense?

[GreenStormCloud]

220. Who needed self-defense is for the trial to establish. N/T

[rgbecker]

228. Could you give a link to that FBI statistic?

That would be a good one to have handy.

[Just Saying]

239. It's the same link I posted.

But if you use it with that line about hands and feet people will call you on it as it's basically talking around the facts. Why not just be genuine with your arguments?

[Bjorn Against]

65. Wrong, the burden of proof is on Zimmerman

The state only has to prove Zimmerman killed Martin, the law does not require them to prove it was not self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense which means the burden shifts to the defendant. If you kill someone and use the excuse "they had it coming" as your defense then the burden is on you to prove they had it coming. If the prosecution were required to prove a negative and definitively show every murder was not self defense it would be nearly impossible to prosecute many murder cases.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. "Small laceration" and "minor bleeding"

Nothing in the report mentions that Zimmerman was subjected to repeated blows to the head.

[Lurks Often]

55. Nothing in the report mentions that he wasn't either

and the EMT's report is a very brief description of what the patient says caused his injuries, the injuries the EMT observed and any treatment.

As much as you may want it to read otherwise, there is nothing in the EMT's report that disproves Zimmerman's story.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. If he had been subjected to severe head trauma, don't you think the EMT report would have noted it?

I mean, come on.

[Lurks Often]

60. You don't understand the law

a person does not have to wait for severe head trauma to be inflicted before using deadly force, he only has to be in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. Zimmerman's story is that Trayvon REPEATEDLY hit his head into the sidewalk.

Having one's head bashed into concrete repeatedly would most likely cause more than a couple of small gashes to the head.

If the injuries are not consistent with the story, it calls into greater question Zimmerman's veracity in the entire story, including (but not limited to) the fact that he was acting in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

Yes, I do know the law.

[Lurks Often]

67. Now you're speculating

"Having one's head bashed into concrete repeatedly would most likely cause more than a couple of small gashes to the head."

I'm sure that will be addressed during the trial.

Out of curiosity what is YOUR threshold of how many times a person has to allow their head to be struck against a hard object before they should be in fear of death or grave bodily harm?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

70. I'm not speculating. I'm going off of Zimmerman's own statement.

His statement was that his head was repeatedly being bashed in.

You're backtracking and dodging the issue by ignoring inconsistencies between Zimmerman's story and the physical evidence, and instead making it about, "Well he wouldn't have to have his head bashed in to shoot the gun!" even though that's a separate issue.

[Lurks Often]

72. Your speculating when you said

"Having one's head bashed into concrete repeatedly would most likely cause more than a couple of small gashes to the head."

And your dodging my very simple question: Out of curiosity what is YOUR threshold of how many times a person has to allow their head to be struck against a hard object before they should be in fear of death or grave bodily harm?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. Detective Sorino (the investigating officer) believed Zimmerman's wounds were not consistent.....

....with his story of having his head beaten against concrete. I look forward to his testimony.

To answer your diverting question, if one hit his head only once, and the impact did not cause immediate major trauma, then I don't believe deadly force would immediately be warranted.

Of course, by asking that as it relates to this trial, you're putting the cart before the horse. You are presuming that Zimmerman is being truthful that his head hit the concrete repeatedly and not just once or twice. The physical evidence appear to belie this.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. You presume an ability to predict the future.

If your head has been stongly stuck once, you have no idea how many more blows or coming. At that point, you are able to defend yourself with deadly force, because blows to the head with a hard surface are themselves deadly force. That is the way the law works.

Whether Z was having his head hit against a hard surface has not yet been argued in the trial.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

223. The inherent flaw in such thinking:

Basically, you could construe any physical action as potentially leading to a life threatening physical injury. It begs a shoot first, ask questions later type of mentality, which is very, very dangerous.

There has to be a threshold crossed before you can justify deadly force. You cannot use deadly force and claim it was justified because the situation **could have** deteroriated into a life threatening one.

As much as gun enthusiasts and CCW proponents want to protest, there has to be added level of responsibility towards the carrier of the deadly weapon. If someone with a CCW uses his gun to shoot someone based on a mistaken or errant belief that one's life is in danger when in fact it isn't, too bad, so sad. You go to jail. You had the gun, you go to jail.

[GreenStormCloud]

225. The problem of trying to address something serious in a short space.

Before you can shoot in self defense there are several conditions that must be met. The person you shot must have had the means, opportunity, and motive to seriously harm you, plus there has to be some sort of immediate demonstration of their intent to harm you. Depending upon the circumstances, you don't even have to be hit, but with different circumstances you may need to absorb considerable damage.

[Lurks Often]

106. We agree on one thing

that a single blow to the pavement would not normally give me reason to use lethal force, I think twice would probably change my mind, but it is hard to put a specific number on it.

And the District Attorney did not feel charges were warranted. Charges were not filed into the media became involved and this became a political issue. Adding up the witnesses on each side is a useless argument, however I will take the Detective's testimony into consideration like I have all the witness's to date.

We are going to disagree on the physical evidence regarding the injuries.

[Skittles]

83. you DO understand

that it was TRAYVON who was fighting for his life against a GUN HUMPING VIGILANTE COWARD???

[hedgehog]

89. If I'm to apply some of the arguments I've seen, I could be a crook and

jump somebody, then kill them and claim self defense if they fight back! Zimmer chased and confronted Trayvon, not the other way around!

[Lurks Often]

118. Nice to see you're keeping an open mind and looking at all the evidence n/t

[qazplm]

137. oh goodness

that's speculation? Ok, I speculate that when I jump off a three story building I would likely have some serious physical injuries.
Sure, it's possible I'd be ok, but it's reasonable to make that logical leap that I'd be hurt seriously, just like it is reasonable to make the logical leap that if your head is repeatedly slammed into a concrete ground there would be a concussion and serious damage to your head, particularly a shorn head.

You strike me as the type of juror I'd never want in court, the one who is always looking for more answers the government has to give you. I suppose during my time as a defense counsel you would have been great.

[Lurks Often]

143. Zimmerman does not have to wait for

severe injuries to be inflicted, only be in reasonable fear of that. Do the injuries reach that level?

There have not been any medical experts so far that can testify one way or the other, so we end up making judgments on the available information.

[arely staircase]

79. not exactly

fearing for your life isn't enough. it has to be a reasonable fear.

[Captain Stern]

90. That's a good point.

If I'm hitting you with a styrofoam wiffle ball bat, you can't shoot me and reasonably claim that you feared for your life. (Well, I guess you could claim it, but it wouldn't fly very far in court)

[arely staircase]

99. or I may truly be afraid of all people with red hair and think they are out to kill me

but that does not add up to a legit self defense claim when I kill the next one I see. There may be an insanity defense in their somewhere. but the fear for your life or bodily harm has to meet the "reasonable person" criteria. would a reasonable person fear for their life in that situation.

[Just Saying]

97. This ^^

Exactly right. How reasonable was his fear when he was armed?

[Lurks Often]

120. Agreed and it will be up to attorney's to convince the jury

of whether it was a reasonable or unreasonable fear.

Personally I think having my head struck against a hard surface, if that is what happened, would be enough for reasonable fear.

[arely staircase]

125. problem for zimmerman is that his superficial wounds are NOT consistent

with his cya head banging story. additionally, martin doesn't appear to have been physically capable of doing that to him. given the fact he Z has demonstrably lied to the cops already, the scratches on his head were probably self-inflicted.

[TorchTheWitch]

163. Exactly

His injuries are inconsistent with what he says occurred.

I don't necessarily agree that his wounds were self-inflicted but that he got them in tussling with Martin or slipped on wet grass and knocked his noggin accidentally. I just don't believe that he purposely gave himself these injuries especially since witnesses saw them fighting or at least rolling around on the ground appearing to be fighting.

The point though is that his light injuries are not consistent with what he claimed happened - therefore, he's lying about what happened entirely aside from all the various versions of what he said happened, which of course, is another indication that he's lied about what happened.

[arely staircase]

165. you said it better than me

"probably" self inflicted was too strong a word, but they are more consistent with cya self infliction than "he was banging my head on the side walk." your tussle theory is probably right.

[TorchTheWitch]

217. these light abrasions on the back of his head look to me

as what would most likely occur if he scraped his head against pavement or against a brick or cement wall, more or less inflicting them upon himself during the struggle while Martin was on top of him. They're abrasions. A few minor ones. That says to me that most likely they occurred when he and Martin were tussling on the ground as was seen by witnesses and in moving about during this tussle Zimmerman scraped his own head against the pavement. And I suppose one could say that under such circumstances these injuries could be considered self-inflicted but not purposely self-inflicted... just what likely occurred during the struggle with Martin as they tussled about on the ground.

Had his head been slammed into the pavement even once there would be bruising and at least one serious lump none of which I see in the evidence photos nor were reported by EMT's. There was nothing more than a few minor small scalp abrasions, and considering he had no hair to protect his scalp it's much more likely that these abrasions could be considered even more minor in how he got them than if he had a decent head of hair to protect his scalp. There's just no way on earth those few very minor abrasions with no bruising or lumps on the head occurred by having his head slammed forcefully into the pavement even once much less repeatedly as he claimed.

He also claimed that Martin punched him in the face something like 30 times. Absolute baloney. His face would have looked like hamburger - bruised, swollen, black eyes, fat lips, lots of blood, etc. All he seems to have had was a little abrasion on the tip of his nose (which I also think occurred the same way the scalp abrasions in the back of his head did), however, he COULD have had his nose broken as it does appear the septum is deviated in the photo though that could be just swelling, but to me it appears that the septum is a bit deviated. Then again, it doesn't take much at all to seriously deviate the septum - it's cartilage and fragile. And not all deviated septums bleed. Mine didn't. Mine didn't even look deviated since the damage was on the inside blocking up nearly three quarters of one of my nostrils. The very moment my nose was struck I KNEW my nose was broken and really expected it to be sticking out the side of my face since that's what it FELT like to me. But even my own parents (and my mom being a nurse) couldn't tell by looking at it that it was broken, and I had to hold a pencil up against the ridge of my nose to even be able to tell myself by looking at in the mirror.

In any case, seeing as his nose looks perfectly straight now, had it been broken and needed correcting there would be medical documents for that. If there are no medical documents showing a broken nose was fixed his now perfectly straight nose was not broken. He's got the most perfectly straight nose I think I've ever seen. Most people don't naturally have such a perfectly straight nose with no odd natural bump or protrusion or crook.

Frankly, if one has had their head slammed repeatedly into a sidewalk to the point that they nearly pass out (as he claimed) why on earth would one not WANT to go to the hospital and make sure that there is no serious fracture or other head injury that can kill a person? How does one have their head repeatedly slammed into pavement and have no bruising and several big old eggs on their noodle? It didn't happen. Zimmerman, in the hopes of making his story sound justifiable as to why he had to shoot Martin went WAY overboard in describing what happened to him since what he claimed happened (head repeatedly slammed into sidewalk and being punched in the face about 30 times) is so totally not consistent with his minor injuries as to make his story too ludicrous to be believed. And the big question is why all this ludicrous lying?

[uppityperson]

178. Exactly, thank you.

[Bjorn Against]

91. You are the one that clearly does not understand the law

You have repeatedly claimed in this thread that the burden is on the state to prove it was not self defense, that is not what the law says. The state only needs to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin, the burden is on Zimmerman to prove that it was self defense.

[uppityperson]

110. Thank you. He keeps missing that bit.

[Lurks Often]

122. The only thing not in dispute is that Zimmerman killed Martin.

Whether it was murder or justifiable homicide remains to be seen.

[Bjorn Against]

126. Yes it remains to be seen, but the fact is the burden of proof is on Zimmerman

Because you are right on one thing, nobody disputes that Zimmerman killed Martin. This means the state has already essentially proved what they need to prove, if Zimmerman claims it was justified then the burden is on him to justify it.

[uppityperson]

177. Nothing in the report mentions he wasn't stabbed either, or he didn't have appendicitis or he wasn't

dressed in a clown costume either.

[GreenStormCloud]

113. In todays trial, pictures were shown that showed several lumps on Z's head.

There were several lacerations on his head.

That was shown in the photographs.

[noiretextatique]

104. one thing you forgot to mention

EMTs said zimmerman's "injuries" were not serious.

[Lurks Often]

111. And how do you define serious injuries?

Serious injury is a relative term, especially with EMT's who see the worst kind of injuries.

No, Zimmerman's injuries were not serious enough to take him to the hospital, which he declined anyway. However the threshold for using lethal force does NOT require you to suffer grave bodily harm. You only have to be in reasonable fear of grave bodily harm.

Reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm is usually defined as would the average person in the same situation consider themselves at risk of dying or being gravely injured.

The broken nose was not a sufficient threshold. Having your head struck against the pavement repeatedly, if that occurred, will probably be considered a sufficient threshold to use lethal force.

[uppityperson]

180. If someone had their head hit on pavement repeatedly, there would be more serious injuries and a few

minor lacerations. Serious injuries would include cuts or lacerations that needed suturing or bandaging. Another serious injury would be a concussion. Or a broken nose (not just a swollen one) or fractured cheekbone. All those are common with fist fights and getting banged repeatedly on the ground hard enough to make one feel they were going to pass out or die.

EMTs do see the worst kind of injuries but that does not mean they discount any they see. They also see minor injuries. To say they discounted Z's injuries because they see worse ones is insulting to them.

[Lurks Often]

237. Then we disagree

and I wasn't trying to discount the EMT's testimony. What is the criteria to determine whether an injury is serious or not when filling out a report? Is there a checklist or is a function of experience and training?

[uppityperson]

249. Experience and training. Good lord, that is why EMTs have mandated training and are licensed, to be

able to determine if an injury is serious or not. Even you could probably differentiate the seriousness between a skinned elbow that needs only a bandaid or a broken arm with the bone sticking through the skin. Add in training and experience and viola!

[Lurks Often]

254. I think we're going in circles

We both agree that Zimmerman's nose and back of the head were injured.

We disagree as to whether a reasonable person being injured in such a manner would feel as they were in fear of death or grave bodily harm, in part because you feel that the EMT report does not indicate the wounds were severe.

[noiretextatique]

253. i don't have a definition, but i am not intereted in spiltting hairs for a murderder

i'll take the trained EMT's word. he did not have a broken nose, that's for sure, and there is not indication that he had any seriopus head injury. which means he is a liar, in addtion to a murderer.

[Lurks Often]

255. And is there any evidence that would change your mind? n/t

[Hoyt]

54. Was he in fear of life when he grabbed a gun and took off after "suspicious" looking unarmed kid.

I doubt it. He was looking for a chance to kill him, and he made things work out where he could.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Please limit comments to things that have happened in the trial. N/T

[uppityperson]

78. Why? We are supposed to only comment about "things that have happened in the trial"?WTF?

[Skittles]

84. self del

responded to wrong person

[GreenStormCloud]

95. In this thread, I am hoping for intelligent discussion of the events of the trial.

I don't really want it cluttered up by posts that are nothing more than rants. Many of the posts in this thread have been excellent discussions of the evidence and of the law. Some have been little more than a desire for judgement without bothering with a trial.

If someone wants to sound off about how much they hate Z, then let them start their own thread.

[Hoyt]

114. Be honest - you are hoping to protect your love of guns and all the seedy crud

that goes with that. Good luck with your thread.

[Nevernose]

86. Did you know I have three dogs?

Also, I'm allergic to cats. Sometimes I forget to put the toilet seat down. I have an in-law who moved to Kyrgyzstan temporarily, for work. I have never been to South Carolina.

Also, Zimmerman, without the slightest bit of provocation, chased an unarmed child and then shot him as the child tried to defend himself from a very scary (and obviously dangerous) man. I know this because I listened to the opening statements and based on facts totally undisputed by Zimmerman have come to a reasonable, educated conclusion that Zimmerman's entire defense is an irrelevant smokescreen designed to shift blame to the victim.

[uppityperson]

87. I prefer cheesecake over regular cake and loath frosting.

I have never been to either Carolina but would like to go sometime.

I wonder how Zimmy could yell that loud while Trayvon had both hands over his mouth while simultaneously pondind his head and get no blood or dna on him.

[etherealtruth]

94. Sometimes I forget to put the toilet seat down.

^^^^^^^^
Unbelievable!


Zimmerman's entire defense is an irrelevant smokescreen designed to shift blame to the victim.

^^^^^^^
Disgusting, but believable!

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Trials don't work that way. Evidence is not submitted in opening statements.

I know this because I listened to the opening statements and based on facts totally undisputed by Zimmerman...

The opening statement of the prosecution is NOT the presentation of evidence. It is a statement by the prosecution of what they intend to prove. Opening statements are never challanged as the defense also gets to make an opening statement, in which the say what they intend to prove.

Then the evidence begins to be presented and will take about two to three weeks. That is where the dispute takes place.

Then each side makes a closing statement.

[Nevernose]

221. Boy, good thing I'm not on the jury then, huh?

[GreenStormCloud]

222. Yes. N/T

[noiretextatique]

109. then he concocted a self-defense scenario

that literally makes no sense because he became the aggressor when he got out of that car...with a gun. killed that poor kid and lied about what happened. he would have been better off just telling the truth...hell, he could have said the gun went off accidentally. but his story is complete bs...miserable coward.

[Skittles]

81. so Trayvon was justified in fighting that gun humping bastard

[riverwalker]

144. "struck on pavement repeadedly"

yet he had no major lacerations, no sutures, no hematoma. Just a little trickle of blood from some minor scratch.
I've had worse injuries bumping my head on the cupboard door.

[Lurks Often]

147. As I have stated a number of times

a person does NOT have to wait for grave bodily harm to be inflicted, they merely have to have a reasonable fear that it may occur

[uppityperson]

181. Which doesn't address what riverwalker is saying. She is talking about the injuries or lack of with

"having your head struck against the pavement repeatedly"

[Lurks Often]

231. Then we disagree

I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Zimmerman's head was struck against the pavement more then once.

[riverwalker]

257. like what? n/t

[Lurks Often]

258. The EMT report describing the wounds

and the photographs taken of the wounds to the back of the head.

[arely staircase]

140. no bruises on martin's hands either

hmm

[Lurks Often]

145. An abrasion to a finger on his left hand according to the medical examiner

and no other signs of trauma (aside from the gunshot wound). I want a medical expert's opinion to decide whether bruising will still form if a person dies almost immediately, especially due to trauma to the heart.

[uppityperson]

182. Yes, it can. I will give you the link. Again.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736761

[Bruise-like discolorations can appear after death].
[Article in Japanese]
Terazawa K, Okumura M.
Source
Department of Forensic Medicine and Medical Informatics, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.
Abstract
It is not sufficiently emphasized in our country that bruising can also appear post-mortem. We report two cases in which we observed discolorations which looked like ante-mortem bruising. Case 1: A 37-year-old man was found prone on a river shore and taken out of the water by a rescuer by grasping at the right upper arm approximately one hour and 30 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations resembling ante-mortem bruising were observed on the lateral and frontal surfaces of the right upper arm. Case 2: A 40-year-old woman was found prone immersed in a moat and taken out of the water in the above-mentioned manner approximately one hour and 45 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations appearing to be ante-mortem bruising were observed on the inner surface of the right upper arm. The cause of death in both instances was drowning. Bibliographic investigation revealed that bruising of significant size can appear after death. We speculate generally on conditions for generation of post-mortem bruising. Additionally, we believe that post-mortem bruising should be sufficiently considered, because it can be important whether a person was grasped when he or she was alive or dead.

[Lurks Often]

230. I'll be more clear, I want to hear the testimony of the medical expert

or medical examiner that either the State or defense uses as a witness.

[uppityperson]

30. Blood oozes for a period of time after death. Medical fact and I have seen it. Good grief, look

at an autopsy table. Yes, blood oozes after you are dead for a while. Ever remove an iv from a dead person and have to hold pressure or bandaid the site? I have. It is very possible for a bruise to form from an injury gotten right before death. Capillaries are broken, blood oozes under the skin =bruise. Different mechanism than heart pumping.

[Lurks Often]

33. I'll defer to the medical experts for the definitive answer

because I am sure it will come up in the trial.

A very quick search gave me conflicting answers on the bruising part.

[uppityperson]

80. Try this link to ncbi.nlm.nih which says yes, bruises can happen after death

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736761

Here is another what I think reputable link.
http://jcp.bmj.com/content/54/5/348.long

Been a RN for over 30 yrs and have seen oozing after death too often.

[Voice for Peace]

82. no bruises, no broken skin, no trace of blood or zimmerman dna on his hands or under his nails

[noiretextatique]

105. = zimmerman is murdering, lying sack of shit eom

[nomorenomore08]

156. Yet some seem so afraid that he's being wrongfully prosecuted. Almost like they identify with him.

*Edit: corrected typo.

[noiretextatique]

248. bingo! eom

[csziggy]

183. No DNA on Trayvon's hands according to opening statements

How do you beat up someone as bad as Zimmerman claims and not have a mark on you or any transfer DNA at all? Especially considering Zimmerman claimed after Trayvon punched him, Trayvon had one hand over Zimmerman's nose and another hand over his mouth?

[btdt64]

256. The lack of DNA

While the presence of DNA would certainly suggest that an event had occured, I fail to see how the lack of DNA is proof that an event had NOT occured. Are we to assume that you would choose to convict a person on A LACK of evidence?

[pacalo]

6. I'll be able to watch it briefly, but I have to leave soon.

Crime scene photos are being shown in relation to the diagram being shown to the jury.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Prosecution is being very methodical.

Dianna Smith, the Crime Scene Technician, is identifying all the evidence and where it was.

[pacalo]

12. From a WFTV live-stream blogger: One juror is taking extensive notes.

The entire jury is paying close attention. (Good to hear.)

Latest entry: Jury is taking notes. (Also good to hear there is more than one doing so.)

[mindfulNJ]

15. Does anyone else think

that those wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head could have been caused by Trayvon grabbing his head as Zimmerman was attacking him when Trayvon was on the ground? He (Zimmerman) was obviously looking DOWN when the wounds were inflicted because the blood is running forward. Wouldnt anyone who thought his life was in danger in an attack do just that?

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Those pictures were taken at the police station, not at the scene.

Other pictures were taken at the scene. Then he was cleaned up by the paramedics. Those blood trails mean that he had his head down after being cleaned up. Likely sitting with his head bowed.

[Mariana]

18. If Trayvon ever hit or scratched Zimmerman

in such a way as to draw blood, I imagine you'd find Zimmerman's blood or skin flakes or some kind of material with his DNA on Trayvon's hands.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. I would think so too. N/T

[Just Saying]

28. I'd like to see more about Z's wounds

The blood didn't look to me like what would happen if his head banged on the sidewalk. And head wounds tend to bleed a lot, as anyone who's had one can attest, but it seems like too little to me. He needed stitches? Also, where is dirt or mud on his head? Was he wet?

I also thought they looked like something done with hands rather than pavement but no DNA under Trayvon's nails. I guess we'll find out more soon enough.

[avebury]

29. I remember when I was young and fell off my

bed (yes I was trying to use it like a trampoline - ) and hit my head on a hard radiator. I ended up with a pretty nasty cut that required stitches at the ER. I find it hard to believe that, if Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head onto concrete, that Zimmerman would not have required stitches. Lacerations to the head tend to bleed a lot.

[Just Saying]

37. My son fell into the stove

And got a gash that bled like crazy! I couldn't believe the blood! (Only needed one stitch and they used that purple glue.)

That was in the front part of the head-maybe the back bleeds less?

[GreenStormCloud]

40. The paramed cleaned up Z at the site.

The pictures you are seeing were taken at the police station.

[Just Saying]

48. No offense but

How could you possibly know what I've seen?

There is at least one picture from the scene that are clearly not the ones from the police station which I've also seen. I've seen the cleaned up photos too and the wounds look insignificant.

Was he treated for head trauma?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Well, we are talking about what has been shown in the trial.

And we are talking about what has been said in the trial. The photos by CST Smith were taken in the police station.

[Just Saying]

101. Okay...

It doesn't change the fact that we're discussing the extent of Zimmerman's injuries and there's more info it there. I'm not going to pretend there's not.

[GreenStormCloud]

102. I'm sure that will be presented in the trial. N/T

[noiretextatique]

107. per the paramedics report

"zimmerman did not sustain serious injuries in the fatal encounter"

[GreenStormCloud]

112. But they did clean him up. N/T

[noiretextatique]

250. there wasn't much to clean

since the EMT report stated he was not seriously injured.

[GreenStormCloud]

259. We will see what evidence is introduced.

The police took pictures when they arrived.

[yardwork]

52. Zimmerman did not need stitches

The EMTs on the scene examined Zimmerman and didn't even put a bandaid on him. His injuries were very minor. Definitely no broken nose. No stitches.

[Just Saying]

58. Thanks

There are conflicting reports. I'm sure that we'll see the actual report at trial.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. She is good. Obviously been in lots of trials before. N/T

[chelsea0011]

34. Does anyone understand the law in FL about the fact

That if Zimmerman is the aggressor and Martin reacts, can Zimmerman still have the right to use deadly force if he believes his life is in danger?

[GreenStormCloud]

39. It is pretty much the same everywhere.

If I start hitting you, you can defend yourself. If I then decide that I have had enough and attempt to disengage, you can not pursue. If you have knocked me down, you can't pound on me. If you continue the fight, you then become the aggressor and I can then defend. However, I will not be totally innocent as I started the whole mess. Depending upon other things I may get off with "excusable homicide" (That isn't the same as justifiable homicide, but I don't know what the practical difference is.) or i could be charged with and possibly convicted of manslaughter. 2nd degree murder would be a very difficult charge to convict me on.

If I am bothering you, but you make the first hit, then all the blame is on you.

[Lurks Often]

42. It's a grey area

In GENERAL, if you get into a regular fistfight, you can not escalate simply because you are losing. However if the other person escalates the fight to a level where you are in now fear of death or grave bodily harm, then yes, barring some new testimony or evidence, you can use deadly force to protect yourself.

The State would have to prove that Zimmerman either started the physical alteration by striking or shoving Martin first or that Zimmerman referenced the gun and told Martin he was going to shoot or kill him. I have seen or heard nothing to date that would suggest either of those things happened.

[uponit7771]

98. Only if he regains "innocense"...I know, it's REALLY stupid

[Democracyinkind]

41. I think the "surprise witness" is up now.

A young-ish adult female that apparently saw some of the Trayvon-Zimmerman interaction.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. Resident of the complex is testifying now.

Said she saw two people standing and fighting.

Seems to contradict Zimmerman's testimony that he was ambushed and never had a chance to get off the ground.

[avebury]

51. The defense attorney is starting to get on my nerves. nt

[lpbk2713]

53. He's trying to make the witness appear confused and mistaken.

She has a deer in the headlights look that is not doing the prosecution a lot of good.

[avebury]

61. She should focus on what she heard. Not stating which way the sound was moving

does not negate what she has reported to the police.

[avebury]

71. Great rebuttal by Prosecutor. He made it clear that

at no time did anyone (not even the Defense Attorneys) ever ask the witness which way the figures were running - i.e. left to right or right to left.

[avebury]

64. Not reporting the direction of movement does not negate

what she heard.

[Thinkingabout]

128. A couple of issues I am interested in hearing. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was

Then I would expect to find blood on Zimmerman's clothes and person since blood will fall downward. Second issue, I had understood Martin was not on the sidewalk in his final position so did Martin drag Zimmerman to where the shot was fired or did Zimmerman drag Martin's body away from the sidewalk. I am not able to watch the trial but would love to have someone respond if this evidence comes out at trial. I understand the jury will base their decision on what evidence is presented.

One more issue, was pictures of Zimmerman taken at the scene to prove he was attacked.

[GreenStormCloud]

138. Yes, pictures were taken at the scene of Z, by the police.

The shot destroyed the heart so pumping of the blood stopped instantly. Blood loss then had to be from gravity. Even though TM fell on his hands, he didn't bleed much.

With a heart shot death is quick, but not instanteous. A person lives another 15 seconds to one minute. Time enough for movement. TM could easily have jumped off Z, walked a couple of steps, collapsed and died. Forensice will be extremely important in establishing what happened.

Take a look at http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php. They are a liberal site, run by lawyers, that gives excellent summaries from a legal perspective.

[Thinkingabout]

151. Thanks for the info and explanation.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. For an excellent discussion, see Talkleft.com

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php

They are an excellent liberal site that is run by lawyers. They have a special section devoted to the trial. Each day's posts give running comments on what is happening, with a legal perspective.

[HockeyMom]

142. Recently hit my head on a low tree limb

in the dark. I heard a crack. Blood was running down my face. My hair was soaked in blood to the point I looked like I had red hair. This was just from hitting the top of my head on a tree, and not for long because I used compression myself almost immediately. Did Zimmy do this too? I didn't take a shower or wash my hair (didn't want to open the wound), but my hands were covered in blood, and I washed them with soap. It came off my hands, but not under my fingernails without several washings. Rainwater, and no soap, would have washed away all the blood on Trayvon's hands and under his nails?

Getting you head smashed down on concrete repeatedly would not at least cause as much bleeding? Zimmy must have a very hard head, and doesn't bleed.

[GreenStormCloud]

150. The medics at the scene cleaned him up.

Today's testimony showed several lumps on his head. Prosecution did not rebut that the lumps were there. Z's hair was extremely short cut, almost bald, so hair would not be a factor. The pictures taken at the scene will be interesting when they are introduced. Two have been released posted in various DU threads. They would tend to show that he did take some damage.

The question would then become, how much damage must a person absorb before they can use deadly force to defend themselves?

Of course, that is after the question of what really happened?

[XemaSab]

212. About 6 weeks ago a dog bit my face

The wound was about an inch long.

Initially there was a RIVER of blood that covered my face, but blood was still flowing for hours after that, even after I washed off most of it.

The wounds on Z just don't look like serious head wounds. It looks like a scratch.

[GreenStormCloud]

213. Legally, you don't have to be seriously wounded before you can defend yourself.

In fact, you don't even need to be wounded at all. Legally, all that is needed is a serious threat of grave bodily harm. IF TM was on top of Z and beating his head against the concrete, then Z can say that he feared that TM would continue until he had done grave damage.

Of course, the question is, "Was TM on top of Z, hitting him?" That is for the trial to establish.

[HockeyMom]

218. No blood on the ground either?

There was testimoney there wasn't any blood found on the concrete.

[GreenStormCloud]

219. Or on the grass.

It was raining.

[HockeyMom]

251. MSNBC showed picture of the body

which was taken by the police when they arrived. Zimmerman said he stretched out Trayvon's arms. In the picture his arms, and hands, are under the body. Blood on hands washed away by the rain? Under the body?

If Zimmy stretched out Martin's arms, as he said, who put them under the body?

[nomorenomore08]

160. That's what I'm saying. It just doesn't add up *at all*.

Combine that with Zimmerman's flimsy (to say the least) justification for following Martin, while packing heat no less, and it really doesn't look good for the guy.

[Catherine Vincent]

148. I watched CNN for a bit just now and...

I watched CNN for a bit just now and I saw for the first time a picture of Trayvon Martin laying dead on the ground. God rest his soul.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

149. I can never get past the fact

I can never get past the fact that the catalyst for these sad events is Zimmerman ignoring protocol and instructions from the police dispatcher and following Trayvon.

[GreenStormCloud]

155. Z did not ignore instructions from the dispatcher.

Testimony has already established that when the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Z was already following TM. He quit when the dispatcher told him that. The dispatcher NEVER told him to stay in his vehicle. The dispatcher asked him which way TM had gone. Z had lost sight of TM and interpreted the dispatchers question as a request that he find out which way TM had gone.

Z did ignore neighborhood watch protocol. Their protocol is to avoid confrontations, stay in your vehicle where it is safer.

Assume for a moment that TM actually was casing homes for burglary while walking home. I AM NOT SAYING THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS DOING THAT, I AM SHOWING HOW Z WAS WRONG. Z spots a suspicious person and calls the non-emergency number of the police. TM sees Z in his truck and walks towards him, then turns and runs. At that point Z has done what neighborhood watch is supposed to do. TM has seen that he has been observed and will likely cool it on burglarizing local homes. Z can sit in his truck for a few minutes, give the police a good description, then go about his business. Nobody gets hurt. Instead, when Z got out of the truck, he blew it.

Unfortunately, it wasn't against the law for Z to get out of his truck, nor did the dispatcher tell him not to.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

164. It's not been conclusively established that Zimmerman returned to his truck....

...after dispatch "suggested" he stop following Trayvon.

Indeed, I believe in a subsequent statement to police, Zimmerman said he continued to walk away from his truck, supposedly to get a street address. So there's going to be an inconsistency there.

Regarding dispatch "suggestions" and neighborhood watch guidelines--true, going against those would not be a violation of the law, per se. However, the fact that he went against both neighborhood watch guidelines and possibly the suggestions of dispatch would go towards the legal argument that Zimmerman was acting recklessly that night (buttressed by his "fucking punks" and "those assholes always get away" contemporaneous statements), which at a minimum would support a manslaughter conviction.

[avebury]

170. Zimmerman has stated that he got out of his truck to get the name of the street.

Does anyone find it ironic that the guy who is supposed to be so involved with the neighborhood watch and patrols that neighborhood is trying to come across like he doesn't know the name of the streets of the neighborhood? I would have assumed that someone who is that involved with the neighborhood watch would have known the layout of that neighborhood cold turkey. He is not a neighborhood watch guy. He more interested in being a roving vigilante.

[GreenStormCloud]

185. Excellent point.

That subdivision is fairly small and only has a few streets.

[Honeycombe8]

189. I don't find that relevant. He was told by the cops not to get out of his car for any reason.

They told him to stay where he was (in his car), as I recall. So it doesn't matter why he got out, does it? Even if it were to get name of street, the cops told him not to get out of his car, esp since Martin was walking toward him and his car by then.

He gives a reason so jury doesn't think he got out of his car to confront Martin, I guess.

I don't know all the street names in my neighborhood, even tho I have been walking my dogs in the neighborhood for ten years or more. I don't pay attention to the street signs.

[avebury]

191. Did you watch HLN After Dark tonight?

They made a good point when commenting on the tape where Zimmerman was talking to the non-emergency 911 guy about meeting up with the police that it was actually clear that Zimmerman did not know where he would be when the police got there. He asked the guy to have the police call him. It is pretty clear that Zimmerman was not going to head to the mailbox to meet up with the police.

[Honeycombe8]

192. I'm recalling the conversation with the police. That's when Z got out of his car.

The call ends after Z says that Martin is walking toward him/his car. The cop tells him not to get out of his car. The call ends shortly thereafter. I don't remember exactly how the call ends, though.

[avebury]

197. There was a whole discussion about Zimmerman meeting up

with the police. The mailbox was mentioned and Zimmerman kind of agreed to meet the police there but then he asked they guy to have the police call him when they arrived which gives the impression that Zimmerman did not know where he would be when the police arrived. He should have just stayed in his truck and driven over to the mailbox area.

It seems like there are some idiots that think that are empowered because they carry a loaded gun with is so short sighted. We live in the country with the biggest gun culture and people tend to forget that other people can also be carrying a gun. If the person you are following is packing and he/she feels like his/her life is under threat, that person would have just as much right to turn around and shoot the person following them right between the eyes (or some other significant place). I think that if he hadn't shot and killed Treyvon Martin that night it would have been someone else another night. Zimmerman is a vigilente/cop wannabe.

[Honeycombe8]

200. No, I'm talking about Z's call WITH the police. Not a dispatcher or someone. It was a male cop

he was speaking with. That is the conversation after which he got out of his car. That's all I'm speaking about. I was responding to a post about the reason he said he got out of his car.

[GreenStormCloud]

210. That was a call to the non-emergency number, to a dispatcher.

He was NOT told to stay in the car.

[GreenStormCloud]

206. Please show that in the transcript of the call.

Here is a link to a complete transcript, with times: https://216.58.158.174/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/zimmerman_non-emergency_call.pdf

Please show the time where a dispatcher tells him to stay in his car. At 2:26 he was already out of his car and trying to catch sight of where Martin had gone. At 2:28 Z agrees to stop trying to find Martin.

[csziggy]

196. That's been bothering me since the beginning

There are only three streets in that gated community. THREE! (Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees Lane, and Long Oak Way) Zimmerman had lived there about a year, had been involved in neighborhood watch activities for at least three to four months.

And he didn't know the street names? He was TERRIBLE at giving directions, too.

[davidpdx]

171. I like that idea

If someone at the end of the day could give a synopsis that would be great too. I'm over in Korea and with the time difference I can only watch the 1st hour.

[avebury]

172. If you can pull up the HLN website they have a daily

blog of what is taking place in court. During the day it is updated as things happen.

[davidpdx]

184. Thanks for recommending that

I can access it and will read that.

[Rhiannon12866]

187. Found it! Thanks so much!

http://www.hlntv.com/

[GreenStormCloud]

195. The site contains an error of fact.

Z's gun was not "cocked". The KelTec is stricker fired and can not be cocked. It is a double action pistol.

[Rhiannon12866]

198. Thanks so much for pointing that out, I've only dealt with rifles.

But I did hear the prosecution say that the gun was loaded. Who in his right mind walks around a residential neighborhood with a loaded gun?!

[avebury]

199. Vigelante cop wannabees!

[Rhiannon12866]

203. If he persisted in doing this, sooner or later something was bound to happen

And how well was he trained in the use of his gun?

[avebury]

207. I totally agree with you. If it had not been Martin, it would

have been someone else.

[Rhiannon12866]

208. He seemed to be looking for trouble

It was just his luck that he went after an unarmed kid.

[GreenStormCloud]

214. Yes. He seems to have had a hero complex.

He was looking for trouble and sooner or later would have found it.

[GreenStormCloud]

202. I do. Most people who have CCWs are routinely armed when they leave home.

What's the big deal about it? Z screwed up, big time. But there are over ten millions people with CCWs and very, very few of us screw up. We are far safer to be around than the general population. Here are some gov't statistics from Texas:

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly three (3) murder convictions and three (3) manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 578 convictions for murder in its various forms.

So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus six innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[Rhiannon12866]

205. Since Zimmerman was doing the following, how was he in fear for his life?

And how well trained was he in the use of that gun? That's how tragedies happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

209. If you are getting your head pounded into the concrete...

you are in legitimate fear of your life or of grave bodily harm. Of course, the question is, "Was he actually getting his head pounded?"

Legally, you don't have to wait until you are mortally wounded to defend yourself, or even wait until you are gravely injured. All that is needed is a realistic threat of grave bodily harm and you can use deadly force to defend yourself. In fact, you don't even need to be struck. All you need is a realistic threat (Be able to prove it afterwards.) and a signifigant disparity of force.

I gave you the statistics, and a link. Six innocents killed versus dozens of innocents saved. By disarming us, you would save six and sacrifice dozens.

Zimmerman violated common sense and neighborhood watch protocol, but not the law by leaving his car to check on TM. He was a wannabe cop. If he had become a cop, he likely would have been a bad one. NW training is to avoid confrontations, simply be extra eyes and ears for the police, nothing more. If they see a suspicious person, call the police. If the person sees them, make a friendly wave. Burglars don't like to be seen. If they know they have been seen, the will usually abort their crime. (I am not saying that TM was casing homes for burglary. I am talking about Z erred.) When TM took off running, if Z had stayed in his car, waited a few minutes, given the police a good description, then he could have gone on his way.

[Rhiannon12866]

211. I understand and that's exactly my point.

Zimmerman wasn't well trained, didn't listen and created the deadly confrontation. Lack of training is responsible for countless tragic accidents. I agree that Zimmerman did all the wrong things. And if I saw him following me, I'd take off too...

[GreenStormCloud]

215. The training was there. He just didn't listen.

As I said, I have a CHL and I am routinely armed. But I have gone out of my way to avoid a bad situation.

A few years ago I was in an auto accident. The other guy was "wanted and assumed to be dangerous". The accident was 100% his fault. He took off running. I was badly bruised by the shoulder strap, and a little bit dizzy. He and his friends in the car were uninjured. After the police arrived they chased and caught him. (He was so stupid that he ran down the Interstate instead of running to the side into the bushes.) His friends started to accuse me and acted like they wanted to settle matters right then, by beating me up. I had my guns on me, concealed. I made a flimsy excuse to not talk and turned and walked (about 100 yards) to the police car and waited there. If they want to start something, let them come down there and do it in front of the cop.

My point is that with a possible deadly confrontation building, I left. I retreated. Did I have to? No, but it was the smart thing to do. Z was amazingly stupid. Those of us who carry are taught that we will be held to a higher standard of responsibility than an unarmed citizen because we know what can happen. Therefore, I believe that Z is guilty of manslaughter, but not of 2nd degree murder.

BTW - Thanks. Responding to you has helped me clarify my own thoughts.

[Rhiannon12866]

216. And thank you so much for clarifying this, as well.

You are obviously responsible, while so many are not. Did Zimmerman have any training? If so, he sure didn't use anything he was taught. If he, like you, and as he was instructed to do, waited for law enforcement to arrive, this whole tragedy could have been averted. Even those with advanced training know that not provoking a situation is the wisest course of action. As you said, even those with nefarious intentions will most often back off rather than face a confrontation.

The outcome with Trayvon Martin is heartbreaking for all involved, since it was so easily avoidable. I was thinking of that today when I looked at those poor parents - and at Zimmerman. He certainly is in over his head, still may not realize what he did wrong.

Thanks for your story! There's an important lesson there...

[WinkyDink]

234. OP, next time please provide some livestream and/or TV links. Thanks. So---are there any?

I'm seeing nothing but DOMA news.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

236. Here's an online link

http://wildabouttrial.com/george-zimmerman-live-stream.html

[WinkyDink]

238. Appreciated!

[Wait Wut]

246. Link?

Everything I found says that claim is bullshit.