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
SURE!
A Black man can outrun a Hispanic man any day.
All Black men are Abebe Beqila and all Hispanic men are Gabriel Garcia-Marquez! NO CONTEST!
Leejcaroll — you coulda knocked me over with a feather. I just found out today when I searched for that name — Dahmer — which I had forgotten. You can read about it here:
http://www.webanswers.com/politics/law-enforcement-police/what-happened-to-the-police-who-handed-jeffrey-dahmer-one-of-his-victims-dc0c49
It not only boggles the mind, it makes me want to go teach police officers lessons! I mean…
Matt says “I still hold to the FACT that a 5’9″ 200 pound Hispanic man cannot OUTRUN a 6’2″ 150-160 pound Black *MAN*
Seems racist to me, because he is Black, he can outrun someone else?
Malisha, I had heard that about Dahmer ands the cops ignoring the young mman a few years back. I was not aware the cops were essentially told by the court, “Well done men.”
@Bosco: BTW, it was not a RUSH to Judgment. It just turned out to be a very short walk to judgment, I mean by the time you listen to the two 911 tapes and read what DeeDee reported, you are practically on top of judgment already. That is probably why the short trip-time confused you, but we weren’t in a rush.
I found the article I had forgotten about, regarding the reason any person being approached by a stranger might have good reason to fear ill effect. It was not John Wayne Gacy but Jeffrey Dahmer who had taken a 14-year-old boy to his apartment and raped and tortured him. Somehow the kid managed to escape and to run, bleeding and naked, into the street, where he ran up to a police car and begged for protection. TWO WOMEN TRIED TO HELP HIM AND TO CONVINCE THE POLICE TO HELP HIM, but they were threatened with arrest. Dahmer came down, told the police the kid was really 19, and convinced them that it was just a gay lovers’ quarrel and they not only refused to protect the victim, they RETURNED him to Dahmer’s apartment for him! Dahmer killed the kid within the hour. When he was later convicted of murder, the two cops were fired, but they sued for their jobs back, and they WON, and got their jobs back WITH BACK PAY!
So that story is on the web. It is unbelievable but it is true. I am not comparing Zimmerman to a mass murderer or to Dahmer; what I am doing is saying that when Martin saw Zimmerman show up again AFTER he lost him by “running,” he could very well have thought, with every good reason, that he was in terrible danger, and that he had better do his utmost to defend himself against the aggressive stranger he could no longer escape.
I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate Martin’s mind for why he wouldn’t want a confrontation with a genuine official or a non-hostile stranger that night. His suspension from school is not relevant, PERIOD. If you are afraid you will be in trouble, but you have nothing incriminating on you (no baggie with traces of anything; no alcohol, no drugs, no contraband), any stop from any authority will be OK. Martin had NO REASON to fear real police that night and in fact, had Zimmerman waited until the real police showed up, the evidence that is in NOW shows that Martin would have said, “My name is Trayvon Martin and I am walking home from the 7-11 and my father is visiting at [whatever the address was]” and they could have checked all that out and escorted him safely home. OR they could have locked him up on suspicion of robbery, read him his rights, and contacted his father and/or mother within the hour. He had no reason to fear Zimmerman OTHER THAN his perfectly normal assumption that ZIMMERMAN WAS UP TO NO GOOD.
If you want to get inside somebody’s mind as to why Trayvon Martin had to end up dead that night, rather than just scared and pissed off, try this one:
Get inside Zimmerman’s head.
(a) Some of the neighborhood watch folks are getting concerned about his conduct.
(b) His plans are not working out very well and his brother is more successful than he is.
(c) He has lost one job for being violent, had a brush with the law for being violent, and might lose his CCW permit if he gets into another fix now.
(d) He might get kicked out of school if he has a black mark on his record, and then he will NEVER be a cop.
(e) He knows the police are coming, and this F*****g “coon” or “punk” or “whatever” — this “asshole” — is not obediently letting him become a hero and there’s a problem here that might be interpreted against HIM, the golden boy, the superhero — what if he gets arrested for assault or something?
It is ZIMMERMAN who sees that his future might suffer if this police report turns out against him. Perhaps he even discharges his weapon once and then realizes that the whole thing is going sour — what if he thinks, uh oh, this F*****g “coon” or “punk” or “whatever” — this “asshole” — could testify against me in a court of law…if he lives…
I don’t think it’s even FAIR to speculate about Martin’s state of mind. He is PROVABLY innocent of all crimes, since a person is innocent until proven guilty and he can no longer be proven guilty. He committed NO CRIMES. So the motivation he had are irrelevant.
Motivation? Zimmerman’s motivation was to WIN the confrontation. He did.
Leander, I would ask you to reconsider the possibility that Trayvon Martin thought he might be in for a kidnapping when Zimmerman FOUND HIM after “he ran” toward the back entrance. That is exactly, precisely, what I would have thought under the circumstances. Here’s what I am suggesting:
(a) If I were 17 years old in 2012 I would have heard about 100 TV news reports about missing children and teens, and right along with those reports, there would have been pictures posted of the kids, and some would have been Black, some white, but nearly all of them rather on the good-looking or pretty side. Check.
(b) If I were 17 years old in 2012 I would have been advised by my parents and probably also in school NEVER to go with a stranger or even TALK to strangers, especially if I were alone. They call it “stranger danger.” They say that some strangers want to kidnap and molest kids. I have actually seen interviews that some psychologist did with incarcerated kidnappers who said that they were able to get kids to go with them even if they told the kids completely illogical stories, just so long as they were able to get the kids talking; that was the key.
(c) If I were 17 years old in 2012 I would have already read the story of John Wayne Gacy who kidnapped and murdered about a dozen boys between the ages of 15 and 21, over a period of years, starting each kidnapping with getting the kids into his vehicle. No force! (That came later.)
(d) Martin spots Zimmerman while he is still in his car. Martin evades him. Then he shows up on FOOT! What is Martin to think? I would think, “this guy is tailing me; he is up to no good; he was quiet at first; he had no flashing lights on his car; I’m alone here; oh shit, I can’t let him take me.”
He is NOT likely to think, “Be cool, he’s probably just a neighborhood watch captain out on patrol, and anyway, the police are on their way, I’m safe.”
Remember, Zimmerman did not shout out at Martin, from the car: “Hey young man, what are you doing here?” An official who could identify himself as law enforcement could have either done that or used his megaphone or turned on his police flashers and would not have had to use stealth and surprise to trail and find Martin.
I don’t think it’s going to far to suggest that at least ONE possibility in Martin’s mind was “Stranger Danger” that night. Not at all.
Certainly, he had NO way of imagining that Zimmerman was any kind of authority figure. And of course, he wasn’t.
The movement to end the SYG laws starts now:
“As Mother’s Day approaches, my friend and Trayvon Martin’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, has created a powerful video,” Simmons explained in an advisory. “I urge you to watch it and to join folks all across America in sending a special Mother’s Day message to the people who most need to hear it. Together, we can end the pain that gun violence is bringing into too many mothers’ lives.”
“This will be my first Mother’s Day without my son, Trayvon,” Fulton says in the video. “I know it will be hard, but my faith, family and friends will pull me through. On Sunday, I’m going to say a prayer for other mothers across America who share this unbearable pain.
“Just like me, 30,000 mothers lost their children this year to senseless gun violence. Nobody can bring out children back, but it would bring us comfort if we can help spare other mothers the pain that we will feel on Mother’s Day, and every day for the rest of our lives.
“I’m asking you to join Florida by calling upon the governor of your state to reexamine similar ‘Stand Your Ground Laws’ throughout the nation to keep our families safe. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Happy Mother’s Day.”
Her video was also carried by a campaign called Second Chance on Shoot First, which as a scorecard that lets viewers check to see if their state has a “Stand Your Ground” law. Similar laws were promoted in numerous states by a non-profit group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which connects lobbyists and lawmakers to help transplant conservative policies around the country.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/11/trayvons-mom-call-the-governor-of-your-state-on-mothers-day/
Shano, you posted it before I could. How much lower can people go???
leander, something that one can find only in America? Why we cannot have nice things here:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/11/trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets-sold-out-in-two-days/
@Bosco: The facts you want are impossible to determine. What was Trayvon’s motivation, what really happened between them, even what was Zimmerman’s true motivation: The only way to know what was in Zimmerman’s head is if he tells us the truth, and there is no way to be certain of that, he has a clear motive to lie.
So the result of your “wanting all the facts” is to postpone, indefinitely, the punishment of any crime that may have been committed. If every trial required “all the facts” then nobody would ever be convicted for a murder committed without witnesses, simply because of the impossibility of knowing exactly what happened.
The fact that there are no eye-witnesses (by either careful planning or by killing them or by happenstance, as in Zimmerman’s case) should never be a formula for getting away with murder, on the grounds that “nobody can be sure what really happened.”
It is why we have juries that can use human judgment, and I think we have enough certainty of the facts to convince a jury that Zimmerman was the aggressor and 100% of Martin’s actions were in response to the threat presented by Zimmerman.
this is an epiphany to me, the way you put it.
Martin had no reason to suspect that the guy approaching/following him WAS an officer.
You know what this statement triggered in my mind. When I was the first time in the states one of my best friends, married to an American in Seattle, introduced me to American laws around alcohol. … She told me that obviously this wouldn’t keep “minors” below 21 from drinking, they were creative enough to find ways around the laws.
I think some of the figures in my head are working now. When the event took place in July 2005, Zimmerman was well beyond the danger of being criminalized himself, he was approaching his 22nd birthday. At the same time it wasn’t too long ago, this could have happened to him too. …. The bar was close to ta college or university, the one he visited at the time? Doesn’t seem to quite fit, he finished his insurance agent certificate in 2003, again no precise figure. …
(2) Martin had no back-up and, unlike Zimmerman, Martin did NOT know that the police were on their way. So he could have easily imagined that what was in progress was a kidnapping,
I wouldn’t go as far as kidnapping. Try to add Tony C’s theory to the frame, consider the suspension. How did the parents react. Another trouble in this context was surely the least he can have wanted.
your other note fascinated me deeply, I do need more time for that. And someone whistles I have to come for dinner. no time to check for missing words or uncompleted changes.
Shano, you’re right. I actually FORGOT that the police said that but at the time I found it so offensive I would have wanted to point it out. It shows that the police had decided, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, to spread out the blame for the incident, 50/50 at least, so that their attitude of “Well what was he DOING there anyway?” brought them much closer to Zimmerman’s “side” in this tale than Martin’s “side.” They were only cops, though, not judges. They shouldn’t have been allowed to let THEIR TAKE on why Zimmerman committed the crime (“after all, he…”) guide their doing their duty of making a proper investigation and arrest. At least holding him for a formal evaluation of the situation, even as a material witness.
Yet I have see judges who do the same, after a trial. One judge commented, while sentencing a man to 6 months and then probation for beating his wife TO DEATH, that the wife had been promiscuous, and that “I can see where ANY man would have applied SOME punishment.” He just said the punishment was excessive so the guy was guilty of manslaughter. But clearly, the cops could have thought, “OK maybe he shouldn’t have SHOT the kid but probably there was a good reason for it and after all the kid asked for it, mouthing off.” That night, when they let Z go, they had no i.d. on Martin yet and probably assumed he WAS some criminal or a run-away kid or a John Doe they didn’t have to care about.
The police probably felt that Martin did something to CAUSE Zimmerman to have to shoot him dead. Famous words of an abuser: “Look what you made me do!” I guess the moral of this story is: If a guy has a gun and a complex, don’t make him kill you.
Reverend CL Bryant would agree with that.
No one here with commonsense is saying that Zimmerman is ‘not guilty’ of anything. Its yet to be determined until we get all the evidence and facts. Some of us dispute the RUSH TO JUDGEMENT that some of YOU are very GUILTY of.
Sling, if he meant to stop following and/or seeking Martin when they said, “We don’t need you to do that,” then he would not have needed to tell the cops to call him when they arrived so he could guide them to him AT THE TIME; if he meant to stop following/seeking Martin, the cops could have met him AT the mailboxes IN his own car, which they would have had no trouble finding. He said “OK” and then he proceeded to do exactly as he wished. He was not gonna let the “asshole” get away. He didn’t. The fact that the police were advising him that asshole-apprehension was THEIR job and not HIS didn’t dissuade him one little bit. He wasn’t going to “mouth off” at the cops but he wasn’t gonna listen to them, either; he knew better.
To those who believe Zimmerman’s word “OK” meant that he was not guilty of following Martin after intoning those two syllables, hey c’mon! It’s ridiculous to think that his saying “OK” meant consent; it meant, “OK I heard you,” which is a common way for people to deflect a direction they do not intend to follow. I do it myself. Someone on the phone tells me, “You cannot speak with a supervisor,” and I say, “OK, but you’re telling me that you have no authority to handle this, so who does?” It doesn’t mean I cannot speak with a supervisor; it means I register the nonsense that I was just told, and I will move along to get what I intend to get, or at least try pretty hard. OK?
Malisha, one of the most outrageous statements was by the Chief of Police Lee when he said that Martin probably would have had regrets about how he acted that night (paraphrasing), if he had lived, obviously. Outrageous.
One reason I think it mirrors most of the problems the US has, a corporate organization, the NRA, wrote a law that is almost impossible to interpret honestly in real life. I have not seen one case where SYG law helped any person navigate the legal system and obtain true justice. All I have seen this law do is help people thoughtlessly kill others and get away with it.
Corporations are writing laws like this in every sector. The laws written for the financial sector make fraud LEGAL. Written for the FDA sector they make it harder for average people to know what is in their food, makes them liable to be locked up for ingesting a home grown medicine, etc. Written for Big Oil/coal/natural gas the laws make it easier to pollute and destroy the value of peoples property with no recourse.
Now it is being applied to murder and the outcome is just as horrific.
Leander: “Sling, I think, it stops, after a appropriate time to react, that is. But I’ll check that.”
As I said, it’s about 10 seconds, which on reading might seem minor, but in real time is significant.
His reaction time is actually instant. He says “OK”
At that stage his brain has registered “We don’t need you to do that.”
Brain sends message to mouth. “Say OK.”
Brain also sends message to legs “Stop walking”.
Mouth reacts quicker as it is closer to the brain.
His legs are not so far from his brain that the message takes 10 seconds to get there.
@leander22: I would not use anything you hear in any work of fiction on TV or in the movies as representative of reality. Sound engineers dub in more dramaticized versions of everything, including car doors and house doors slamming, traffic noises, engine noises, heck they will dub in a “click” when the actor turns on the map light; sub-aural “whooshes” and “smacks” when somebody throws a punch, super loud “cracks” when somebody steps on stick, and on and on. They are examining every quarter-second of the film for potential added “soundscaping” and/or digital enhancement. It is an important dramatic element.