More Documents Released in Trayvon Martin Case
Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: AP
Sanford police officers gave conflicting accounts of an ex-neighborhood watch leader's injuries in the minutes after he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Documents released by prosecutors Thursday show that some officers thought George Zimmerman's nose was broken but others didn't. The officers agreed that Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head.
The degree of Zimmerman's injuries could be important in his claim of self-defense. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting.
The documents also provide an account of Martin's activities with his cousin the day before the shooting and show crime scene photos
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/documents-released-trayvon-martin-case-16762228
will update as more info is released.
Investigator: Zimmerman profiled teen over hoodie, not race
SANFORD, Fla. -
The lead Sanford police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin told the FBI that George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch leader charged with murder in Martin's death, profiled the unarmed teen because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt not because he was black, according to newly released documents.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Investigator-Zimmerman-profiled-teen-over-hoodie-not-race/-/475880/15490538/-/rlg2nrz/-/index.html
PDF of released records:
http://www.news4jax.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,171 posts)he will build his defense around the notion that his life was in danger. It will be a hard sell I think.
Phillyman
(7 posts)IMO every1 was following Zimmermans claims, since there's very little evidence of a severe injury. I listened to the initial interview with Singleton and Zimmerman admits the EMTs told him no hospital was necessary. Part 1 of his first interview. I think there's no question of the true severity of the injuries.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)There was no head trauma. The 2 small cuts to the back of his head are the likely result of a backwards fall (as a result of a punch to the nose?).
There is no injury to support his claim of Martin supposedly pounding his head into pavement. The witness who initially said the person on top was delivering martial arts style punches has recanted. There is nothing except Zimmerman's word.
hack89
(39,171 posts)neither one had visible injuries to their heads. As we have learned the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan, the brain is a sensitive organ.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I'm not basing that statement on photos or external injuries or my personal opinion.
He was examined by an emt immediately after and a doctor the next morning. There was no indication concussion or trauma beyond 2 superficial cuts.
The official reports by licensed medical workers who examined him that will be used as evidence say there was no head trauma.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if his head was being pounded into the ground there may not be visible wounds but that doesn't mean that his head was not being pounded into the ground or that he no reason to fear serious injury.
Because that is what his defense will be - he feared for his life. And the wounds or lack of wounds will be irrelevant because it will be very easy for the defense to find doctors who will testify about brain trauma and how there may not be external injuries.
I just don't see the wounds or lack of wounds as being harmful to his case. It will be impossible for the prosecution to find a doctor to testify under oath that those wounds are meaningless.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)If his nearly bald head had been pounded into pavement, there absolutely would be external wounds, in the form of bruises and/or abrasions. The 2 tiny cuts do not support that. (that part is my opinion, but having fallen on pavement and skinned and bruised knees on many occasions, I do have some supporting evidence.)
We agree that the presence or lack of external wounds are not indicative of head trauma.
External wounds are not how doctors diagnose concussion or head trauma. Eg, when I've been in an ER for a possible head trauma, some of the tests included: Ability of gaze to follow moving finger, identify the number of fingers held up, response of iris to light, ability to identify myself, location, date of birth, today's date, asked repeatedly and at odd intervals, ability to describe accident, follow simple instructions, count, etc.
A doctor examined him and based on the lack of appropriate symptoms determined that there was no head trauma. The defense can counter that to their hearts content; the bottom line is he lacked the appropriate symptoms.
Therefore, while nothing specifically precludes it (maybe he's really hard-headed), there is nothing to support that his head was pounded into the pavement.
In other words, if the attending doctor had seen any symptoms of head trauma, that would support his claim his head was pounded.
With the lack of appropriate symptoms noted by the attending physician, he cannot prove his head was pounded.
In his SYG hearing, he will have to prove he feared for his life. His story to date is based in part, and at the critical moment of decision, on Martin supposedly pounding his head into pavement. That is why he feared for his life.
And that still boils down to his word. IOW, if nothing specifically supports his claim of his head being pounded into pavement, it is entirely his word that his head was pounded. And now, thanks to his recorded jailhouse conversations, that is the word of a proven liar.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/concussion/DS00320/DSECTION=symptoms
Concussion Symptoms per Mayo clinic:
Signs and symptoms of a concussion may include:
Headache or a feeling of pressure in the head
Temporary loss of consciousness
Confusion or feeling as if in a fog
Amnesia surrounding the traumatic event
Dizziness or "seeing stars"
Ringing in the ears
Nausea or vomiting
Slurred speech
Fatigue
Some symptoms of concussions may be immediate or delayed in onset by hours or days after injury:
Concentration and memory complaints
Irritability and other personality changes
Sensitivity to light and noise
Sleep disturbances
Psychological adjustment problems and depression
Disorders of taste and smell
hack89
(39,171 posts)he will give it a shot but SYG doesn't really apply - his will be a standard self defense argument that will be laid out in a regular trial. So at trial he has to prove nothing - the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life - but no doctor will testify that there was no potential for life threatening injuries. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that he actually suffered injuries, only that he was in a situation where he had a reasonable fear of suffering life threatening injuries.
So unless the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's head was not pounded into the ground (which I think is impossible from a medical perspective) then the prosecution has a tough job on his hand.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)SYG in Florida means you must prove you had reasonable fear for your life or life threatening injuries in a hearing. His SYG hearing will be in front of this judge, where he must affirmatively prove that he had reasonable fear for his life.
I *realize* that he doesn't have to prove he actually suffered injuries, only reasonable fear yada yada yada.
His statements up until now have been that he feared for his life because Martin was pounding his head into the pavement.
Absent supporting evidence, that claim depends on his *word.*
If and when he loses SYG as a defense, the prosecution does not have to prove he had no reason to fear for his life. All they have to do his go after his credibility. He has *only* his word that he had reason to fear for his life. His credibility is already in shreds in front of this judge.
"Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that he actually suffered injuries, only that he was in a situation where he had a reasonable fear of suffering life threatening injuries."
Which, in the absence of supporting evidence, is based on his word.
And again, the situation where he had reasonable fear as justification for killing *is* the SYG defense. The SYG hearing isn't just some exercise; it determines whether or not he had reason to fear for his life and can use that fear as his defense.
If he loses that hearing, he has lost fear for his life as a defense and the prosecution doesn't have to prove he didn't have reasonable fear. That whole line of defense is gone.
From everything I've read, the SYG hearing is the make or break for his case. I expect that is where all stops will be pulled out.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what if Zimmerman declines to testify? Then the prosecution is screwed, right? Because then the prosecution has to actually prove that he did it. If I was the defense, I would wait to see what the prosecution had before deciding if Zimmerman would testify.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)then justifiable self-defense is no longer available to him.
At that point, it becomes his duty to have retreated and he is forced to other reasons to explain away the killing. He can no longer claim that it was justifiable self defense. That is what the SYG hearing is all about -- can he claim that he killed in self-defense due to reasonable fear for his life under SYG?
Conversely, if he wins the SYG hearing, then the prosecution has a huge uphill battle trying to prove to a jury that it really wasn't SYG and that he didn't have reason to fear for his life. So the hearing allows him to assert the SYG defense, but doesn't prove it.
That is why so much hinges on the SYG hearing.
At his trial he can decline to testify. At the SYG hearing, I'm not sure if he has that as an option. The lawyers that have weighed in have said he will have to testify at the hearing because only he can explain why he feared for his life. But I'm not sure if they meant he literally has no choice, or if they mean that if he doesn't testify on his own behalf then it's left to the documentation and witnesses to "prove" his reasonable fear, which would be a very weak defense since only he knows what was going on in his mind (and even that is questionable, lol).
And while he can decline to testify at his trial, I think (but am not certain) I've read that his SYG hearing testimony can be used at his trial.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But basically it requires a pre-trial evidentiary hearing.
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward.
If the judge decides to allow the prosecution to go forward, then it becomes a standard self defense case - there are other self defense provisions besides SYG. Are you familiar with this Florida law, for instance? Under Florida self defense law, there are two circumstances where the aggressor retains the right to use lethal force in self defense.
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
He will plead SYG just to see if he can get it past the judge, but judging from his comments and the leaked evidence, I bet he will use either (or perhaps both) sections a and b of the above law as his defense.
Phillyman
(7 posts)Anyone can claim fear. The jury will have to believe his actions and ideas were reasonable ie reasonable person standard.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but if he can convince a jury that his head was being pounded into the ground then it should not be hard to reach that standard.
But youre starting your argument @ head banging as if its a fact. If the jury feels his possible chasing and/or detaining (as DD said cornering) then they may feel this is not reasonable behavior.
hack89
(39,171 posts)under certain circumstances. Such a defense shifts the focus back to Martin's actions - were his actions reasonable.
Since there are no eyewitnesses to the actual shooting and Zimmerman the only surviving participant, it will be hard for the prosecutor to impeach Zimmerman's story. The prosecutor has to prove that Zimmerman committed murder "beyond a reasonable doubt." With no witnesses an little physical evidence that is not an easy task.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Which brings as right back where we started. *He* must convince a jury his head was being pounded into the ground.
How do you suggest he convince the jury? He has no physical evidence supporting it. He has no witnesses who saw that. He has only his word and credibility. And his word was pounded into either the sidewalk or cement, not the ground. Critical difference there.
"and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force"
He is on record as claiming that Martin was circling his car and he was so afraid he rolled up his windows to avoid a confrontation. How does that square with him choosing to leave his car and follow Martin? Versus driving away to escape danger?
He is also on record as to the initial, verbal confrontation. According to the police records, he could have defused the situation by explaining who he was.
He is on record as claiming that Martin had him pinned to the ground and was pounding his head into pavement, that he was able to "scoot away," and then shoot him from a short distance (technically medium range, which is ~ 1" to a couple feet, I forget exactly). If he was able to "scoot away," he was not pinned and he was able to escape.
And the trail of Martin's debris, including cell phone and iced tea can, leads to 40 feet away from the nearest pavement where he claims he was pinned and pounded. The bullet casing ends the trail of debris. It was found 40 feet from where he claims he was pinned.
Nobody is saying the prosecution case is slam dunk. But they do have a very strong case against him.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I suspect the prosecutor is praying for a plea bargain.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)he's been handed.
He was handed rope and he hung himself and got caught in a lie by the judge that handed him the rope.
Now his wife is facing perjury charges, and his sister who received some of the money may be dragged into it as well. And the judge is quoted as believing that Zimmerman was planning to flee the country.
The judge has handed him a second rope, a much shorter leash that presumably he can't string himself up in.
The prosecution is likely just collecting evidence and potentially additional charges against various family members involved in the perjury to persuade him that a plea might be better for him than facing a judge he lied to, or trying to prove his head was pounded into the pavement based on zero evidence other than his claim or that he had no chance to escape when he had multiple opportunities.
hack89
(39,171 posts)time will tell.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)4/2/12/ 1810 hrs
Joseph Santiago
4/2/12 1500 hrs
"He saw the phone ion (sic) the grass and called out one of his officers to attempt to retrieve information"
From Dale Gilbreath
4/21/12
"He attempted to comfort her by telling her that the person calling for help was alive. Serino told her that the alive person was "really beaten up and scratched".
Lots more to read here, thank you for the pdfs. Lots of questions, lots of assumptions.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)A standard definition of when it is valid to use lethal force to defend oneself is when in FEAR OF death or grave bodily injury. A person does NOT have to wait until a grave bodily injury is inflicted.
The other important part is that a REASONABLE person would be in fear of death or grave bodily harm.
I think that any reasonable person will consider that having one's head pounded against the pavement/sidewalk could result in a serious head trauma.*
*I am NOT saying that did or did not happen the night of the incident. That will be determined in a court by physical evidence, testimony of the police and EMT and possibly of the witnesses.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and SYG requires an affirmative defense; he will have to testify as to why he feared for his life.
He claims Martin was pounding his head into the pavement and that is why he feared for his life.
If he has supporting evidence of that claim, such as injuries to his head or brain or an eye witness to the event, that bolsters his defense.
If he lacks supporting evidence, his defense is based solely on his credibility.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)And not 'lurking.'
Jus' saying.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)you're the poster in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=161974
that posted nonsense and had half a dozen of us point out what an absurd statement you made.
Phillyman
(7 posts)On the self D, or the head banging they will probably find his actions unreasonable. Was the totality of his actions reasonable? Would you behave the same way? I would say no.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)however that does not mean Zimmerman's actions reach the necessary threshold of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
Based on the lacerations on the skull, the broken nose (both in the EMT's written report that night), the grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's clothes and the majority of eyewitness testimony that APPEARS to put Martin on top of Zimmerman, I would reasonably believe that Zimmerman was in fear of death or grave bodily injury.
To put my above comments in context, I have had use of force training through obtaining my carry permit, through military police training and at my own expense, police level or near police level use of force training by Massad Ayoob, a part time police officer, nationally recognized firearms & use of force trainer and someone who frequently testifies as a use of force expert in court.
What I think happened is that Zimmerman, in an effort to keep Martin in sight for the police, got out of his vehicle when Martin ran down the pedestrian path, lost sight of Martin and then they encountered each other by surprise at a close distance and which point the physical altercation ensued. While this scenario is supposition on my part, it does seem to fit the available physical evidence and the majority of eye witnesses testimony I have seen.
