ABC News has been given a photograph that might make the difference between life in prison and a walk. For weeks, we have been discussing the case and the application of the Stand Your Ground law. As discussed earlier, I think the case was over-charged and I remain doubtful of a conviction. This picture will likely be the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows Zimmerman with significant blood on the back of his head — an image that supports accounts from the scene and will be used to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of a struggle with Trayvon Martin where he feared serious bodily injury. [UPDATE: Zimmerman granted bond].
Unlike the photos of Zimmerman at the police station, this photo was taken a few minutes after the fight. Zimmerman’s shaved head could prove Godsend for Zimmerman. Had he had longer hair, the injury would have not appeared so stark.
The photo shows both cuts and a contusion — injuries that would normally be defined as serious bodily injury by many courts in torts cases where head injuries are treated as inherently potentially serious. The original police report said that he was bleeding from the nose and head and that his clothes looked like he had been in a fight. Zimmerman claims that it was Martin who jumped him, punched him, and pounded his head on to the concrete sidewalk.
The prosecutors can still argue that they do not contest the fight but that Zimmerman started it. However, with this photo, the charge of second-degree murder appears even more excessive and undermines Special Prosecutor Angela Corey’s claim that she was not affected by the political pressure to charge Zimmerman. I can understand a manslaughter charge, even with the photo, but no reasonable prosecutor would consider the second-degree murder charge as based on this evidence. Corey clearly must have seen this photo and the reports before her charging of Zimmerman.
The photo should also assist Zimmerman in his efforts to get bail.
Zimmerman, 28, is still being held on charges of second-degree murder of Martin, 17. In my view, a denial of bail would be an abuse and unwarranted given the fact that Zimmerman cooperated at the scene and voluntarily turned himself in.
Source: ABC
Matt,
You apparently don’t understand how influence works. There could be a question of special treatment. End of sentence. Whether Zimmerman himself proffered the “my dad is a judge” story is irrelevant to the appearance of impropriety created when the police wanted to charge him and the prosecutors cut him loose under circumstances where anyone else would have been charged as standard operating procedure. Recall that the prosecutor responsible for cutting Zimmerman loose has “stepped aside”. This further adds to the apprearance of impropriety. It was only after media attention forced the issue that another prosecutor stepped in and charges were filed – as they should have been in the first place.
Sorry. Your apologetics and evasion on this issue simply don’t hold water.
The question of undue influence is at the heart of the narrowly avoided injustice that was about to be perpetrated by lettting Zimmerman walk.
Gene – There could be a question of “special treatment,” but was Zimmerman quoted as saying “My dad is a judge,” or more along the lines of “I’d like to talk to my dad for advice?” Nobody knows except for who was in the police station that night. Either way, police are not going to listen to the “my dad is a judge” story from anybody. People are pulled over all the time and state things like “My brother, mother, father, uncle, etc. is a cop, lawyer, judge, etc.” and they still recieve a ticket or are taken away in cuffs. So in this case of killing someone, especially this case, they are absolutely NOT going to let the person walk because they know someone in criminal justice.
Malisha (especially) and everyone else – I might also add that the photo was taken by a witness that “tells ABC exclusively that he heard Martin and Zimmerman fight before the shooting and that after Martin was killed, a wobbly Zimmerman asked the photographer to call his wife.”
“Did daddy respond using undue influence? Now that the justice system has fully engaged Zimmerman, the shooter, that is the question I want answered.”
Since asinine is a synonym for foolish, I’d say there is nothing foolish at all about Blouise’s question given that Zimmerman’s father was a Magistrate and his son mysteriously went initially uncharged in a situation where anyone else would have been charged. The proper adjective for Blouise’s question would be “pertinent” or “relevant” or even “proper”, but it is mostly certainly not a foolish question. It goes to the broader question of corruption, undue influence and/or judicial/prosecutorial/police incompetence that created the initial injustice proper in the first place – namely that Zimmerman was about to get a walk instead of charged.
Malisha – “After he shot Martin, he presumably did not know whether Martin was dead or not, but apparently told two female witnesses to call the police (no mention of ambulances) and told another witness with a cell phone to call his wife (neither police nor ambulance) and take a picture of his head.”
When you call 911 what is the first question they ask you? “What is your emergency?” So to say that he had people call 911 (police) and not an ambulance is wrong.
Anon – Let’s say you went out and told your wife that you would be back in a certain amount of time. Let’s also say that something happened (lets say you got hit by a car or hit someone accidently with your car) wouldn’t you want your wife to know and not worry (her)? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to call your significant other in case of an emergency. Not to mention that (apparently) he asked some other folks to call 911 also.
Blouise – That is the most asinine comment. Would you not go to your own family (whether your family member is a judge or not) asking for advice as to what you should do? I personally think that any “right minded” person would say yes to that question. I go to my father for advice all the time, on anything. I trust my family’s opinion and advice at all times.
@Blouise: My opinion of the justice system is that their typical response is far too little, far too late. Chief Clancy Wiggum (Simpson’s) says in a lazy moment, “Why can’t anybody in this town take the law into their own hands?” I think most of the real police force is similarly un-motivated.
In my view publicity brings the appropriate response, because publicity endangers those at the top that have to run for office, and they in turn threaten the jobs of the police force that would rather ignore routine cases that won’t get them any career points. In this particular case, they just did not realize Trayvon Martin would not be a routine case. But it did reveal their routine treatment, and that is an embarrassment, so now they will proceed sticking meticulously to the book. Unfortunately, that is how our world sucks, for every Trayvon for whom justice is served, there are a hundred for whom justice was too much bother, and the media only has so much bandwidth.
“THAT is what I think, that Zimmerman’s intent was the same as any bully, intimidation to make himself feel important and powerful, and that escalated to murder because he never expected anybody to fight back.” (Tony C)
And then, like so many bullies, he whined … “Daddy!!”
Did daddy respond using undue influence? Now that the justice system has fully engaged Zimmerman, the shooter, that is the question I want answered.
Why would Zimmerman ask someone to call his wife?
Is this that difficult to answer?
What is wrong with you people?
@ Elaine M — thanks for clear thinking, biased though it was!
Zimmerman “knew” that the police were coming out to investigate a suspicious looking asshole who was trying to run away toward the back entrance of the neighborhood. After he shot Martin, he presumably did not know whether Martin was dead or not, but apparently told two female witnesses to call the police (no mention of ambulances) and told another witness with a cell phone to call his wife (neither police nor ambulance) and take a picture of his head. Maybe. That witness has not been identified I think. It is strange that the witness who took the picture was not mentioned in the police report filed by Officer Ayala. To me it sounds like depraved indifference. Martin could have been alive at this time, bleeding out onto the ground. Had he gotten transfusions and been rushed to the ER, IF he was still alive while these things happened, might he not have possibly survived to tell the tale?
@Bosco: On the contrary, I do not assume Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was black. I think he killed Trayvon because he was a paranoid asshole and Trayvon was a teenager casually sight-seeing a neighborhood in the rain, and Zimmerman’s paranoia interpreted that as Trayvon looking for trouble. I think Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a criminal, and I have no idea how much race entered into that calculation; I think a white kid or Hispanic kid or Chinese kid dressed the same and acting the same (and also doing nothing wrong) could well have aroused Zimmerman’s unfounded paranoid suspicions the same.
What I think is that Zimmerman thought he could play the gun-fighting town marshal and run the punks out of town, and he stalked Trayvon, confronted or cornered him, and out of fear Trayvon fought back and got the upper hand. Then Zimmerman panicked and shot Trayvon, because Zimmerman was not his fantasy town marshal, he was a coward with a gun pretending to be a big man, and had never had to do anything before but show his gun to make punks run. But that does not make his actions self-defense, he was the aggressor, and losing a fight you started does not let you claim self-defense. THAT is what I think, that Zimmerman’s intent was the same as any bully, intimidation to make himself feel important and powerful, and that escalated to murder because he never expected anybody to fight back.
Malisha,
“AND — OK, I do biased thinking. VERY biased thinking. I think the things I choose to think and want to think based on my own attitudes, history, intellect, and opinions. Yeah, I’d say that was biased. See, the Censor is not yet allowed to tell me how to think and how not to think. So I think biased. When they pass that law that says I’m no longer allowed to just think what I want to think, but have to amend my thinking to think what I really SHOULD think, and the enforcement of that law requires that I be placed in a “re-education” or “rehabilitation” camp so that I will stop thinking biasedly, that will be time for me to eat my gun — oh wait a minute, I don’t own a gun. Oh well, nevermind, I’ll just go for a stroll in a hoodie. Somebody with a gun will find me.”
*****
Don’t you know that a person is only allowed to biased on one side of the issue?
*****
Bosco said;
“secondly, in re to the non call to 911 you accuse him of. It is public RECORD that Zimmerman knew the police were on their way!”
Did Zimmerman know that police were on their way to investigate a shooting? Did Zimmerman call for paramedics? Did he know paramedics were on their way?
When i said “..accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American”
All REFERRING to a persons ACTIONS and not of the person he or she, themselves
Without knowing me personally, how is it that you can define it any other way? Your putting words into my mouth which is unfair.
And this statement-“If you are using “biased” as a code-word for “race-based,” that is not true either.” is just plain >stupid<.
the word biased meaning-
'particular tendency or inclination'
YOU are injecting a 'race-based' ideology to what i said.
Which is WRONG despicable and deplorable.
Just as you would absolutely decide without all the info and facts that Zimmerman killed Martin just because he was black.
Shame on you without having all the facts to your disposal.
@ Bosco — YOU said that people on the thread were saying (maybe you even said thinking) in a way that was “despicable, deplorable and un-American.”
Despicable? That comes from the verb “to despise.”
Deplorable? That comes from the verb “to deplore.”
Where did I get you wrong, man?
AND — Yes I DO know that Zimmerman didn’t like Martin, after calling him an asshole and [at least] a punk. Am I to presume Zimmerman liked assholes and punks?
AND — Yes I DO know that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I know that he said Martin was “get[ting] away” and then he admitted to following him. That’s per se aggression. It wasn’t like Martin had stolen his purse and he was running after him to get it back.
AND — OK, I do biased thinking. VERY biased thinking. I think the things I choose to think and want to think based on my own attitudes, history, intellect, and opinions. Yeah, I’d say that was biased. See, the Censor is not yet allowed to tell me how to think and how not to think. So I think biased. When they pass that law that says I’m no longer allowed to just think what I want to think, but have to amend my thinking to think what I really SHOULD think, and the enforcement of that law requires that I be placed in a “re-education” or “rehabilitation” camp so that I will stop thinking biasedly, that will be time for me to eat my gun — oh wait a minute, I don’t own a gun. Oh well, nevermind, I’ll just go for a stroll in a hoodie. Somebody with a gun will find me.
@Bosco
“This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
you said-”..that resulted from his aggression against a stranger”
YOU were not there..you do NOT know that Zimmerman was being aggressive. Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression.”
This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
“Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression.”
Perhaps because it was dark, Zimmerman did not notice that he was wearing Seven-league boots and that when he stepped from his car, that his foot landed a considerable distance along a path leading away from the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-league_boots
@Bosco: All else is SPECULATIVE and biased thinking.
No it isn’t. I heard the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call, I am not speculating about that. I heard the tape of Trayvon’s girlfriend and what she said, I am not speculating about that.
As for “biased” thinking, there is no such thing as unbiased thinking. The whole point of thinking is to determine how firmly one believes each potential sequence of events, to determine how plausible the different scenarios are. The whole point of thinking is to become biased!
If you are using “biased” as a code-word for “race-based,” that is not true either. I can easily believe that one person killed another person with malice completely unrelated to race. I do not have to believe Zimmerman was a racist to believe he stalked and killed someone he stereotyped as a “punk.” Existential rage can settle into any skin color or gender.
Malisha,
This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
you said-“..that resulted from his aggression against a stranger”
YOU were not there..you do NOT know that Zimmerman was being aggressive. Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression. I’m not saying he wasn’t aggressive because i do not know. You on the other hand have made that decision in your mind without ALL the facts.
you said-“..when you see someone out in public, who is not threatening you, but you don’t like them… and then shoot them dead, and then do not call 911 to report their injury or death immediately…”
First of all, how do you KNOW Zimmerman did not like Martin? He may not have liked Martin’s alleged actions when he saw him, but we don’t know who he likes or dislikes. You say he didn’t like him,,why? Are you suggesting that he is a racist?
secondly, in re to the non call to 911 you accuse him of. It is public RECORD that Zimmerman knew the police were on their way! Also to add, i am sure that a tragedy like that effects us all differently. You nor i can pass judgement on those who have gone through something like that.
you said-“..75% of America that wanted George Zimmerman tried”
What data are you getting that number from? I don’t disagree because it is imperative that Zimmerman be given a FAIR trial .
Lastly you said-“..the folks on this thread whose comments you have despised ..”
Now you are passing judgement on me?
I do not despise ANYONE here. I respect opinions even if i do not agree. My words to not show hatred but in your biased mind I’m sure it does.
The rest of what you had to say is one-sided and boring.
@ Bosco: You said:
Its POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.
Chill, Bosco. “It is POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense” —
Right off the bat, I do not concede that at all. It is POSSIBLE that he committed manslaughter after getting the worse part of a physical altercation that resulted from his aggression against a stranger, I do concede that. But when you see someone out in public, who is not threatening you, but you don’t like them, you follow them, you then have something to do with them [we do not know this part] and then shoot them dead, and then do not call 911 to report their injury or death immediately so help can arrive quickly, I don’t think you can make out a case for self-defense. At the very least, you have shown depraved indifference for their life. Mr. McNeil in Georgia wasn’t able to get off on self-defense when he was witnessed shooting someone advancing on him with a knife!
“and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.”
Woah. The media, the 75% of America that wanted George Zimmerman tried, and the folks on this thread whose comments you have despised and deplored ALL have said that the STATE should have accused Zimmerman NOT of “being” a cold-hearted racist killer or of “BEING” anything else. There is a very big difference between “being” and “doing” and that is the province of criminal law. You don’t charge someone with “being a cold-hearted racist killer” or of “being a soft-hearted non-racist self-defending killer” or of “being a criminally responsible manslaughterer of unknown psychological character” or of “being bad” or “being not good enough.” You charge him with a crime that has been written down by the legislature and you charge him with violating that statute in a certain way. SO those of us who believe that blood on Zimmerman’s head, whether it is really his blood or not, whether it was put on his head by slams against concrete or not, whether it implicated a dead man with murderous intent against Zimmerman or not, is not relevant to whether or not Zimmerman violated the criminal law of Florida are stating our opinion — some of us quite vigorously — and that is the essence of the American way. For you to adopt a position that we are becoming un-American by availing ourselves of the rights guaranteed to us under the First Amendment to the US Constitution is even curiouser than the case of the dog in the night-time.
The ONLY commonsense mentioned and used within the last 2 postings- “Time and court proceedings will tell”
All else is SPECULATIVE and biased thinking.
@Rebecca, Beccs1980: Who asks a random stranger to call his wife and goes on to pose for a headshot?
I am not in the habit of defending Zimmerman and I think Zimmerman is guilty of murder and I hope a jury sends him to prison.
That said: Anybody ever involved in any kind of “incident” knows that police work is really rather boring, if there is no particular threat to life or health a great deal of time goes by with cops taking forever to get anything done. It isn’t like TV, the detective doesn’t rush over with sirens wailing and find the key piece of evidence in 30 seconds.
Under those circumstances, a guy involved in the incident, whether innocent or guilty, has time to contemplate his future. If he thinks the cops are failing to pay attention to his injuries or document them, and they have taken his phone/camera, he might well ask a stranger to take a picture, call his wife, whatever. And that is not a bad instinct. Cops miss things, investigators can be incompetent, and having a picture you can testify was from the scene is better than words alone.
Ditto for getting your wife involved immediately; I would do that too. No telling how long before I got my phone call, and if my wife is expecting me and I am more than two hours late and haven’t called and I am not answering my phone, she is going to panic and start calling emergency rooms.
Zimmerman was not wrong to obtain picture of his injuries at the scene, and not wrong to have his wife called, and I do not find this behavior damning in the least. I DO think he is guilty of murder, for other reasons, but this particular behavior is innocuous, it is the behavior of anybody whose mind is whirling while being detained, innocent or guilty he would seize upon any opportunity to take some action. Even with a complete stranger with a cell phone.
Rebecca,
We may never know what the nose looked like that night. And perhaps Zimmerman has a medical report describing the nose soon after the incident. Time and court proceedings will tell.
I do see a bump in the after picture. But I am pretty sure my x-wife has given me a worse bump on more than one occasion.
Of course she was 5’1″ with red hair and an Irish temper, so don’t even get me started on whether I feared for my personal safety.
BTW, I want to state for the record, I never went to the doctor and I did not shoot her.