Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[Perd Hapley]

ABC has acquired Z's doctor's findings on the day after the shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7Mk4cWPYcQ

Also, he was prescribed certain medications prior to the shooting. Supposedly, those may have affected his behavior.

[Fitz]

No. Anything other than "he was a racisty racist with racist hatred of blacks, that silly cracker" is not acceptable.

[De Selby]

Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution.  Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too.  The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)

[seeker_two]

Were his injuries from the fight with Martin or from being thrown under the bus?.....

[roo_ster]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/autopsy-reveals-travon-martin-had-bloody-knuckles-when-he-died/

WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.

The information could support George Zimmerman’s claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.

The autopsy results come as Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.

O’Mara wouldn’t comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it’s better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.

WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.

Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution.  Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too. The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)

Okey-dokey. 

GZ is the one being accused.  It is up to the accusers to prove he was in the wrong.  Got anything that proves GZ started the violence?

Somehow I suspect the absence of such wounds on TM would have elicited a different response from you.

[makattak]

Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution.  Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too.  The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)

Except for being consistent with his story.

Zimmerman has to be an absolute genius to have come up with a story so quickly that is consistent with all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Obviously he needs to be put away before he kills again, diabolical mastermind that he is.

[MicroBalrog]

So.

Here's what we have:

Two people have fought. One was unarmed and the other was armed.

Thereafter, the unarmed man is dead and the armed man is seriously injured.

There is no detailed evidence as to who started it.

In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?

[dogmush]

So.

Here's what we have:

Two people have fought. One was unarmed and the other was armed.

Thereafter, the unarmed man is dead and the armed man is seriously injured.

There is no detailed evidence as to who started it.

In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?

Oh it's possible.  Just wait.

[HankB]

In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?

An excellent question. The prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime he stands accused of. Based on the current public record, this is going to be very difficult; unless credible evidence - no inference, not extrapolation, but actual EVIDENCE - comes to light that proves Zimmerman initiated violence, competent representation ought to result in acquittal. ("Competent representation" includes jury selection - if the jury pool is comprised of Al Sharpton fans, Zimmerman is toast.)

Zimmerman's story (as reported in the news) seems to be consistent with the physical evidence; if a couple of months of local, state, and Federal law enforcement investigation in full CSI mode haven't blown it out of the water, it's unlikely to be a spur-of-the-moment fabrication from a guy with a broken nose and lacerated scalp, not to mention the adrenaline dump from shooting someone who was beating the cr@p out of him . . . a beating that was witnessed by a third party.

Given the overall, well, dumbness of getting out of his car to follow a suspicious character, does anyone really think Zimmerman is enough of a genius to fabricate a consistent story on the fly?

The dynamics of the debate are interesting - while some have already decided he's the worst type of hateful, racist murderer, the "other" generally isn't saying Zimmerman is an innocent man, they're mostly saying "Let's see what the actual  EVIDENCE says."  And right now, the EVIDENCE we know of doesn't erase reasonable doubt.

And one last thought: have the autopsy results of Martin been made public yet, specifically the results of drug/tox screening?

[Jamie B]

Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution.  Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too.  The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)

Snort!
Looking at Martin's injuries, and then at Z's, it certainly supports Z's version of the events.

The last time that I checked, being followed for a short time breaks no laws.

Maybe Z profiled Martin - so what?

Maybe Z followed Martin for a short time - so what?

Maybe Martin's dress, stature, walk, and ambience projected a gang-banger attitude.

Maybe Martin deserved the scrutiny.

Maybe Z was following Martin, hoping that Martin would just leave after getting his attention.

Maybe Martin jumped Z first - being followed is no reason for first blood, nor for physical provocation.

Wounds absolutely indicate physical altercation details, and both are consistent with Martin physically assaulting Z, and Z defending himself.
 

[cordex]

At the moment the question is less "Was Zimmerman getting his butt handed to him when he shot Martin?" and more "Did anything Zimmerman do in initiating the contact justify Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman?"

I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.

[makattak]

I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.

I've read this attitude in comments on nearly every article in this case. I wish I could say it surprised me.

[T.O.M.]

I don't know what Florida law is with respect to self-defense, but here in Ohio, self-defense is an affirmative defense.  I've prosecuted these kinds of cases.  In essence, what the defense has to do is say, meaning that Z would have to say "Yep, I intentionall shot him, but there's a justification."  It then becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that the shooting was justified.  That's where this case will get interesting, assuming that the defense chooses this strategy.  Why?  That's where all of the crap about who did what first will come out.

In my opinion, under Ohio law (again, don't know Florida law), there's one key issue...in Ohio, the person claiming self-defense must prove that he was not responsible for creting the situation in which it became necessary for the deadly force to be used.  Classic example from the past was a man who broke into a house, aremed with a handgun.  The homeowner finds the crime going on, and comes at the burglar with a bat.  Burglar shot and killed the homeowner.  At trial, he argued that he reasonably feared for his life and only fired to protect himself.  Because he created the situation b y breaking into the house, the justification failed.  If Florida law is like this, Z has a problem, in that he created the situation by following T in his car, getting out of the car, and pursuing T between houses.  And, this testimony will be the key point when the prosecutor can play Perry Mason during Z's testimony (and he will have to testify if he's going to claim self-defense).  When he says that he was afraid for his life, the prosecutor will say "at what point, Mr. Z?  When you followed him in your vehicle, or when you left your vehicle and chased T on foot?  Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him?  If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?"  If it gets to that point, that is where Z will lose.  Yes, the Stand Your Ground law may say that you don't have to retreat, but it isn't a license to engage in a pursuit.

[HankB]

Quote from: cordex on Today at 11:02:39 PM
I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.

I've read this attitude in comments on nearly every article in this case. I wish I could say it surprised me. 

If the deliberate approach of an unwelcome stranger is ever judged to be a legitimate reason to go into kill mode . . . Austin, TX (and many other cities) will shortly thereafter experience a sharp rise in panhandler and vagrant mortality.

. . .  Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him?  If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?"  . . .

Wouldn't the prosecution have to show that Zimmerman did corner Martin, and that he did continue following Martin after the 911 call ended, rather than breaking it off and heading back to his car as he claims? (Wouldn't the location of the witnessed beat-down support this claim?)

IANAL, but it seems to me that if it can be shown that Zimmerman cornered/assaulted/illegally detained Martin, Zimmerman is toast. But I haven't seen evidence in the news that this is the case.

[T.O.M.]

Wouldn't the prosecution have to show that Zimmerman did corner Martin, and that he did continue following Martin after the 911 call ended, rather than breaking it off and heading back to his car as he claims? (Wouldn't the location of the witnessed beat-down support this claim?)

To be honest, I don't know, because I don't know Florida law.  It may come down to a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury, which is a determination of when "the incident" occurred.  In my scenario (the burglary), it started when the break in took place.  Here Z will argue that there was no incidenty until he got attacked, and the Prosecution will argue that it started when Z got out of the car and started pursuing T.  If this was Ohio, that would be a question of law for the jury to decide.

What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur. 

[makattak]

What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur.  

I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)

But that's stupid. If I walk up to and ask someone to stop who is causing a disturbance and they assault me with such force that I fear for my life, under Ohio law, I would be charged and convicted of a crime because I "caused the incident to occur?"

[roo_ster]

I don't know what Florida law is with respect to self-defense, but here in Ohio, self-defense is an affirmative defense.  I've prosecuted these kinds of cases.  In essence, what the defense has to do is say, meaning that Z would have to say "Yep, I intentionall shot him, but there's a justification."  It then becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that the shooting was justified.  That's where this case will get interesting, assuming that the defense chooses this strategy.  Why?  That's where all of the crap about who did what first will come out.

In my opinion, under Ohio law (again, don't know Florida law), there's one key issue...in Ohio, the person claiming self-defense must prove that he was not responsible for creting the situation in which it became necessary for the deadly force to be used.  Classic example from the past was a man who broke into a house, aremed with a handgun.  The homeowner finds the crime going on, and comes at the burglar with a bat.  Burglar shot and killed the homeowner.  At trial, he argued that he reasonably feared for his life and only fired to protect himself.  Because he created the situation b y breaking into the house, the justification failed.  If Florida law is like this, Z has a problem, in that he created the situation by following T in his car, getting out of the car, and pursuing T between houses.  And, this testimony will be the key point when the prosecutor can play Perry Mason during Z's testimony (and he will have to testify if he's going to claim self-defense).  When he says that he was afraid for his life, the prosecutor will say "at what point, Mr. Z?  When you followed him in your vehicle, or when you left your vehicle and chased T on foot?  Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him?  If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?"  If it gets to that point, that is where Z will lose.  Yes, the Stand Your Ground law may say that you don't have to retreat, but it isn't a license to engage in a pursuit.

To be honest, I don't know, because I don't know Florida law.  It may come down to a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury, which is a determination of when "the incident" occurred.  In my scenario (the burglary), it started when the break in took place.  Here Z will argue that there was no incidenty until he got attacked, and the Prosecution will argue that it started when Z got out of the car and started pursuing T.  If this was Ohio, that would be a question of law for the jury to decide.

What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur.  

That seems to be the exact opposite of the way it ought to be.

IOW:
1. All homicide ought not be a crime, most especially cases of self-defense.
2. The state ought to have to prove that it was not self-defense, not the other way around.

It seems the law is tilted in favor of both the state and low-lifes, leaving decent folk to hang in the wind.

I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)

But that's stupid. If I walk up to and ask someone to stop who is causing a disturbance and they assault me with such force that I fear for my life, under Ohio law, I would be charged and convicted of a crime because I "caused the incident to occur?"

This.

[T.O.M.]

Quoted from Makattak:  "I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)"

No offense taken in the least, my friend.  No worries.  I often criticize the law.   

As to the point you and Roo_ster make, I think I may have spoken poorly, so to speak, with respect to "causing the incident."  If you as a citizen are doing nothing more than minding your own business, and let's say you bump into someone walking down the street.  The person then attacks you.  You did not start this incident, as your actions were not provocative.  You committed no criminal act, threatening act, or something that would cause a reasonable person to react violently.  Were you acting legally when you asked the person to stop?  Probably depends on how you did it.  Assuming you followed the P in APS, you did not start the incident, as it had not yet been a criminal incident yet.  Going back to my burglary, the rationale for the decision was that the shooter claiming self defense was in the middle of an ongoing criminal/wrongful act.  He was not acting legally at all in the situation.

That's why I believe that Z is in trouble.  Well, one of several reasons.  But, if Florida law is similar to Ohio law, the jury may decide that when he got out of his car to follow T, that point in time was when the incident began, so it was Z's fault.  The jury may say that Z had no reason to get out of the car and follow T, especially since he was told not to by the dispatcher, so they may find him to be at fault for starting the incident, nullifying his claim of justification for the shooting.

Frankly, the biggest lesson I take from all of this is, as we often say around here, we are not the police. The weapons we carry are for the protection of ourselves and our families.  We don't investigate suspicious people, especially on other person's property.  We call the cops and wait in a safe place.  Had Z done this, there would be no case to discuss.

[makattak]

Quoted from Makattak:  "I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)"

No offense taken in the least, my friend.  No worries.  I often criticize the law.   

As to the point you and Roo_ster make, I think I may have spoken poorly, so to speak, with respect to "causing the incident."  If you as a citizen are doing nothing more than minding your own business, and let's say you bump into someone walking down the street.  The person then attacks you.  You did not start this incident, as your actions were not provocative.  You committed no criminal act, threatening act, or something that would cause a reasonable person to react violently.  Were you acting legally when you asked the person to stop?  Probably depends on how you did it.  Assuming you followed the P in APS, you did not start the incident, as it had not yet been a criminal incident yet.  Going back to my burglary, the rationale for the decision was that the shooter claiming self defense was in the middle of an ongoing criminal/wrongful act.  He was not acting legally at all in the situation.

That's why I believe that Z is in trouble.  Well, one of several reasons.  But, if Florida law is similar to Ohio law, the jury may decide that when he got out of his car to follow T, that point in time was when the incident began, so it was Z's fault.  The jury may say that Z had no reason to get out of the car and follow T, especially since he was told not to by the dispatcher, so they may find him to be at fault for starting the incident, nullifying his claim of justification for the shooting.

Frankly, the biggest lesson I take from all of this is, as we often say around here, we are not the police. The weapons we carry are for the protection of ourselves and our families.  We don't investigate suspicious people, especially on other person's property.  We call the cops and wait in a safe place.  Had Z done this, there would be no case to discuss.

The problem with your analysis is that getting out of the car is as innocuous as approaching someone to ask them to stop causing a disturbance.

ANYTHING barring a violent or aggressive approach (i.e. running at someone and screaming obscenities or threats or crazy things at them) is the equivalent to me of asking someone to cease causing a disturbance.

Should Zimmerman have gotten out of the car? In hindsight, we can clearly say it was more costly to him to do so than to sit in the car.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I would be hard-pressed to fault him for wanting to keep an eye on someone he thought was acting suspicious so that the police could investigate him.

[T.O.M.]

That seems to be the exact opposite of the way it ought to be.

IOW:
1. All homicide ought not be a crime, most especially cases of self-defense.
2. The state ought to have to prove that it was not self-defense, not the other way around.

It seems the law is tilted in favor of both the state and low-lifes, leaving decent folk to hang in the wind.

Roo_ster, frankly I think that the law has to be this way.  We as a society hold life to be sacred (excluding abortion, the death penalty, and other issues I don't want to debate here.)  And we believe that those who take a life without justification should be punished.  So, we start from the point that homicide is wrong.  But, we (especially here on APS) believe in the right to self defense.  So, how do we punish killers but still allow the use of dealy force to protect one's own life?  You use the affirmative defense.  So, as an accused, you tell the jury "Yes, I took his life, but I had a good reason to do so."  And, the jury will hear the facts and decide if your justification was valid.

The whole "not responsible for starting the affray" part of self-defense law came out of situations, like the burglary I used as an example, where criminals in the course of their criminal act, were taking the life of the victim but then claiming justification as an affirmative defense.  In other words, yes, I was raping your daughter, but you came at me with a knife, so I shot you to save my life against your deadly attack.  I reasonably believed that you were going to seriously injur or kill him.  Without the requirement of showing that the killer was not at fault in creating the situation, the law would have allowed criminals to kill in the course of their criminal acts and legally claim self-defense.

AS an armed citizen, so long as you are in a position of not engaging in criminal behavior, or frankly dumb behavior, you can successfully argue self defense time and again. Z made a bad choice to leave his car and chase the bad guy.  What that did was give the jury a factual determination to make as to when the situation started, and if the chain of events was somehow the direct result of Z's actions, and that those actions were not legal.

In a clear cut situation, this discussion would be easy.  Like the homeowner in bed who shoots and kills an armed intruder.  Obviously, the home owner did nothing wrong to start the incident, so the shooting would be clearly justified.  But this case is far from clear.  Lawyers have a saying, that bad cases make bad law.  This is a bad case, and I hope and pray that it doesn't creat bad law for us all.

[T.O.M.]

The problem with your analysis is that getting out of the car is as innocuous as approaching someone to ask them to stop causing a disturbance.

ANYTHING barring a violent or aggressive approach (i.e. running at someone and screaming obscenities or threats or crazy things at them) is the equivalent to me of asking someone to cease causing a disturbance.

Should Zimmerman have gotten out of the car? In hindsight, we can clearly say it was more costly to him to do so than to sit in the car.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I would be hard-pressed to fault him for wanting to keep an eye on someone he thought was acting suspicious so that the police could investigate him.

And here is where it will become a factual issue for the jury to decide.  Getting out of the car is innocuous.  I agree.  But getting out of the car and following/chasing someone for no apparent legally justified reason may get Z jammed up with the jury.  The jury may see no problem with Z getting out of his car and following T to see what was going on.  BUt, they could also see Z's act as threatening/menacing, and use that as the starting point for the situation.

I guess my point here is that, as armed citizens, we need to be aware that our actions leading up to a shooting will be reviewed as much as the circumstances of the actual shooting.  We need to remember that a jury will be looking to see if we are at fault for improperly creating a situation that led to the use of deadly force, and avoid giving the jury to find that the entire situation was our fault.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I think we need to make a clarification here.  I keep hearing the terms following and chasing being used interchangeably.   I believe that those terms imply significantly different actions. 

If Zimmerman was following Martin, I see very little wrong with his actions.  Following someone is not what I would consider an aggressive act.  Even if Zimmerman was running while following him.  Merely following someone should not lead a reasonable person to fear for their lives/safety absent some other action or indication. 

The difference I see is in the intent of the act.  Chasing someone I read as an aggressive act that would lead to a reasonable fear for their safety in the person being chased. 

If Martin was so afraid of Zimmerman, why didn't he call the police?  He had a cell phone.

Furthermore, if Zimmerman's account is accurate, then I see two separate events, even if you consider Zimmerman's following of Martin as "aggressive" enough to justify Martin "defending himself."  Zimmerman's account is that after he lost Martin, he was returning to his vehicle to wait for police.  Zimmerman was no longer actively following or chasing Martin.   Martin then approached Zimmerman and without apparent further provocation, attacked Zimmerman.   Remember, this is the man he was so afraid of that he feared for his safety.  EVEN IF Zimmerman's initial acts started the whole chain of events rolling, it appears that there is a separation of the whole event into two separate events.

[MechAg94]

I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver.  I just don't see the act of following as threatening.  I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close.  I do see what Chris is saying though.  It all depends on how to Jury sees this.

Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman.  If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?

[T.O.M.]

I think we need to make a clarification here.  I keep hearing the terms following and chasing being used interchangeably.   I believe that those terms imply significantly different actions. 

If Zimmerman was following Martin, I see very little wrong with his actions.  Following someone is not what I would consider an aggressive act.  Even if Zimmerman was running while following him.  Merely following someone should not lead a reasonable person to fear for their lives/safety absent some other action or indication. 

The difference I see is in the intent of the act.  Chasing someone I read as an aggressive act that would lead to a reasonable fear for their safety in the person being chased. 

If Martin was so afraid of Zimmerman, why didn't he call the police?  He had a cell phone.

Furthermore, if Zimmerman's account is accurate, then I see two separate events, even if you consider Zimmerman's following of Martin as "aggressive" enough to justify Martin "defending himself."  Zimmerman's account is that after he lost Martin, he was returning to his vehicle to wait for police.  Zimmerman was no longer actively following or chasing Martin.   Martin then approached Zimmerman and without apparent further provocation, attacked Zimmerman.   Remember, this is the man he was so afraid of that he feared for his safety.  EVEN IF Zimmerman's initial acts started the whole chain of events rolling, it appears that there is a separation of the whole event into two separate events.

I agree on the following/chasing point.  they are very different words with different implications, and I'm sure the prosecutor will say chase while the defense says follow.  which is right, I don't know.

Second, ambulancedriver, i think you bring up a good point.  If T was afraid of Z, why initiate the assault?  I wish I could answer that one, but I've seen people do very strage things.

My point throughout is I have no idea where thr truth lies in this case, but there are valuable lessons to learn.  And, I do have a fear that the backlash from this case may impact us all, and not in a good way.

[T.O.M.]

I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver.  I just don't see the act of following as threatening.  I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close.  I do see what Chris is saying though.  It all depends on how to Jury sees this.

Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman.  If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?

I've never heard of a successful claim of self defense during a homicide trial that didn't involve the defendant testifying.  He may have no choice...