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
Recent news—
“Autopsy results reportedly indicate that 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died, which could support George Zimmerman’s claim that the unarmed teenager assaulted him before he was fatally shot.”
Get ready for more of the same convoluted long winded and narrow minded explanations as to how this latest report ‘means nothing’ and doesn’t make any difference to the over all view that Zimmerman “profiled” and “racially murdered” Martin.
People would love to see that Zimmerman found guilty of a Federal Hate Crime and sentenced to death based upon their slanted presumptions of what had happened.
Even self-acclaimed intelligent Research Scientists here will not give ANY possibility that there MAY be a little truth to Zimmerman’s claims. Even when the AUTOPSY and medical reports do point to a POSSIBILITY of what may have really happened.
Oh i forgot,,some would say that even IF Zimmerman may have told basic facts .. he is STILL guilty of racial murder anyway because,,after-all HE started it just by being Zimmerman.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^See what i mean folks? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@Malisha: I imagine the prosecutor will be more eloquent and less repetitive than me. She will polish and practice. Don’t forget, the defense gets the last word, so the prosecutor must address the points of the defense without knowing precisely how they will be put, and there is no do-over.
If there IS a trial the defense is going to claim self defense or manslaughter. The prosecutor must make the injuries of Zimmerman (and Trayvon) the moot point that it really is. The injuries are the expected result of a fight, but a fight in progress, no matter how it is going or who is on top, does not tell us who was attacked and who was defending at the start of the fight. I have been attacked and won (in a weaponless fight). I also know people that picked a fight with the wrong person and got their ass kicked.
The prosecutor must make it clear that the injuries really tell us nothing, and we will never know whether Zimmerman first pushed or hit Trayvon out of anger or Trayvon first pushed or hit Zimmerman out of fear. However, the events leading up to that moment make it clear ONE of those things happened, and either one is due to Zimmerman’s bad judgment and vigilantism, not Trayvon Martin’s.
Tony C, well said, could be the prosecutor’s closing argument.
@Bosco: Part of the reason it won’t make a difference if Trayvon swung first, or in response to Zimmerman, is that as long as Zimmerman denies it, either case is unprovable. That fact will NEVER be in evidence. It will ALWAYS be supposition.
The jury cannot just take Zimmerman’s word that Trayvon was committing a crime of assault. If Zimmerman admits that HE took the first physical action, they can believe that, for the same reasons we typically accept confessions of guilt without a trial, but not denials of guilt.
Your problem is you refuse to face that reality, Zimmerman will be tried (or plea) without anyone ever being certain of who swung first. But WITH the fact that in the past Zimmerman HAS taken the first physical action in a fight, even against a cop.
You do not know who got physical first, and nobody will ever know who got physical first, unless Zimmerman admits HE did, which I think is unlikely.
So the trial must proceed without that knowledge, the jury must make a decision without any certainty about who got physical first, whether a slap, push, punch or kick. They must come to their own conclusion.
I think, after some deliberation, just like in this thread, they will come to the realization that it really does not matter: The pattern leading up to the physicality is very clear. There are plenty of facts to show Zimmerman was making an aggressive pursuit of Trayvon, and that Trayvon was alarmed by that and responding TO that pursuit, even according to Zimmerman Trayvon ran to escape him, and was “getting away.”
So whether Zimmerman realized it or not, his aggressive following and confrontation is what started the fight. There would have been no fight, and no shooting, without it.
Once the jury realizes that, and I think they will, they will also realize Zimmerman’s injuries or Trayvon’s injuries do not matter either. We already know there was a fight, injuries are expected, so the question returns to who started the fight? Zimmerman did, by aggressive pursuit that by Zimmerman’s OWN account alarmed Trayvon enough that Trayvon tried to run and get away, or hide or escape Zimmerman.
The possibility that Zimmerman might kill Martin existed from the first moment of the siting of a “suspicious person,” while Zimmerman was still in his SUV. Although Martin might not have known about that possibility from the first siting, he certainly might have suspected it. To him, Zimmerman might have seemed very suspicious. After all, why would a grown man who was not a cop and who wasn’t asking directions slow down or stop, and watch a kid walking by? And then, after Martin ran away (“Shit, he’s running”), why would that suspicious looking guy follow the kid?
Well, let’s see. There could be various reasons. Martin could have thought of several of them. The guy looked like he was “up to no good.” He might have looked like he was on drugs or something; Martin didn’t know what was up with him. He might have touched his waist-band. He might have had something in his hand.
If Martin did suspect that Zimmerman might kill him, no matter when, after the first siting, Martin did begin to suspect that, that was the right time for Martin to engage in extremely vigorous defense.
Once I saw a demonstration of the Israeli martial art called KRAV MAGA. This martial art, which is taught internationally at present but which was developed in Bratislava in the 1930s to defend people in the Jewish quarter (read “ghetto”) against fascists, was a common-sense-based fighting form whose purpose was to neutralize a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible, and think about the rest later. In other words, TRUE self defense at the moment of greatest perceived need. The first principle of the technique is as follows:
Counter attacking as soon as possible (or attacking preemptively)
Yes. When you are an endangered minority, and you are threatened, and you have no time to try to negotiate yourself a safe passage away from danger, and you have no back-up, and you have no deadly weapon on you, and the other person may have a deadly weapon and/or may have the advantage on you some kind of way, what do you do?
Counter-attack as soon as possible OR attack preemptively.
It is a survival technique. I wish Trayvon Martin had done years of training in Krav Maga before his 17th birthday. Of course, if Zimmerman did have all the injuries his family doctor says he had, Martin did OK for himself even without that training. But that doesn’t change what happened to him that night. Sometimes the odds stacked against someone are too great to overcome.
Folks,,feel free to add-on SlingBlade’s comment above to what i was saying
I think Martin could have jumped Zimmerman.
– Not because Zimmerman was threatening him physically, but because Zimmerman spoke to him using EXCESSIVE CAPITALISATION.
Ive said all along that this thread had turned into a ‘playground’ for those that want to feed off of prejudices and assumptions.
Using this site as a way of expressing and sharing what they feel is a clear example of ‘white/governmental’ racism with the use nothing but convoluted theories ignorance and their own personal prejudices.
As many with commonsense here had expected .,. when more of the FACTS started to emerge, in this case physical and medical FACTS, the main ‘players’ of this playground would go all out to denounce, discredit and question all of its validity.
They have that right to do that of course, but what makes them think that ONLY THEY have all of the RIGHT answers when NONE of these self righteous people were there to WITNESS ANY OF IT?
If we cant rely on the evidence being shown then what DO we rely upon,,the words of assumptions and allegations made by ignorant people here and abroad?
Like these-“They’re stoking up sympathy for Zim..”
“It will not make a difference, …. if Trayvon swung first..”
“I just came up with evidence that Martin was justified in punching Zimmerman in the nose .blah blah blah.”
“ZIMMERMAN PROFILED MARTIN”
“What was found at the crime scene was not recorded, so we do not know what was found at the crime scene..”<-(one of the dumbest ones yet, ALL crime scenes are RECORDED-they stated that they were going to suppress all of the facts and they DID)
OK no more,,I got tired of reading the same old long winded ignorant BS being stated ,,ive made my point with these snippets ..
Hey Anon' you have been posting very logical views ,you and David Larry.
I'm thankful to see that there are more here that dont speak with PREJUDICE.
Hopefully Matt might make an appearance.
Tony C — that’s why there will be a plea. They’re stoking up sympathy for Zim right now so the plea will be supported more easily by the public, who by this time are sick of the “poor Zimmerman” story.
@David Larry: It will not make a difference, to the jury, if Trayvon swung first. As I said, by Zimmerman’s own account, by the account of his 911 call, by the account of DeeDee on the phone with Trayvon, everything Trayvon did he did in response to Zimmerman following him.
The jury will therefore give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was frightened by Zimmerman, and in the final exchange reported by DeeDee, which I think is highly probable to include the characterization of Zimmerman’s tone (which the words suggest was aggressive and demanding) Zimmerman will be seen as a liar (Trayvon did NOT jump him from behind) to cover up the fact that he was the aggressor throughout. Trayvon will be seen for what he was, regardless of size, physique, appearance or color: A non-adult teen, alone at night, stalked and frightened by an aggressively angry adult; which is supported by the 911 tape (calling Trayvon an asshole, a punk, a criminal, etc).
If Zimmerman is the aggressor, his self defense claims will fall on deaf ears, in the eyes of the jury he will be a man that picked a fight with a minor and was losing, so he pulled a gun.
The jury won’t care why or whether Zimmerman was entitled to be suspicious or within his rights to follow, stalk and go hunting for Trayvon, the non-adult dead teenager that was just talking to his girfriend and committing no crime whatsoever will get the benefit of the doubt.
typo: Your death would be the attacker’s best defense.
Leander, the fact that there were two witnesses and one of them is dead (and the other has BIG INCENTIVE TO LIE) means that we have no objective independent record of who made physical contact first. I don’t think it matters, in context.
It would mean that if you’re alone with your target, it is best to kill him, so you can claim self-defense and not have an alternate story being given to the police, wouldn’t it?
Be careful in Florida, folks. If someone marks you as prey, and you are not a “VIP” and there is no video recording device (even as much as Rodney King had in California), your death would be the attacker’ best defense.
David Larry, I just came up with evidence that Martin was justified in punching Zimmerman in the nose (which I am not convinced he did, but what the heck, let’s assume it arguendo): He was human; he was in danger; he knew it; he acted upon that knowledge.
You might have a problem with each and every one of those independent clauses, but there you have it.
I wrote above “Zimmerman was foolish and reckless. The NW connection makes that even more culpable.”
To expand:
What he did was in itself reckless. He followed someone into the dark – while being in the belief that this was a criminal – and that might be armed “his hand on his waistband” – while carrying a gun.
That this is reckless is (1) common sense (2) clearly implied by the Neighborhood Watch rules forbidding such behaviour.
Zimmerman might say that he never actually read the NW rules – as he was not actually affiliated to NW.
However, in a legal sense, he had “constructive notice” of the NW rules as he purported to be a NW Captain and presumable had something to do with the notice at the gate.
Having “constructive notice” of something means that he failed to be aware of something that was available to him and that he should have been aware and taken notice of.
If there were absolutely no NW connection in this, Zimmerman’s recklessness amounts to manslaughter.
With the NW connection, it is more serious than manslaughter.
Do you have any evidence of Zimmerman grabbing Martin? Anything? I didn’t think so.
Do you have any evidence Martin attacked first?
There is nothing contained in the current body of disclosed evidence that would permit Martin to use force against Zimmerman.
Zimmerman can legally refuse to answer Martin, just as Martin could legally refuse to answer Zimmerman. A refusal to answer does not justify the use of force.
“Martin did not “assault” Zimmerman in a legal sense”.
this is an amazing logic. Which US laws exactly are basing this assessment on. In a nutshell. What law allows a gun-holder to use force but denies the same rights to the person that defends himself without other means than his fists?
Since strictly this could be a possible scenario.
DavidLarry:
“Do you understand what it means to meet force with force? If you did, you wouldn’t be having such a problem recognizing just how important “Who threw the first punch?” is to the equation.”
Do you understand that nobody will ever know who threw the first punch, and that therefore any discussion of this is therefore conjecture, and thus irrelevant. It might be important, but nobody knows what happened.
“There is nothing contained in the current body of disclosed evidence that would permit Martin to use force against Zimmerman.”
Equally, there is nothing contained in the current body of disclosed evidence that would permit Zimmerman to use force against Martin and thereby start a physical fight.
“Zimmerman can legally refuse to answer Martin, just as Martin could legally refuse to answer Zimmerman. A refusal to answer does not justify the use of force.”
Now you are being “either a …. ” (the terms you used above :).
You appear to be assuming that Martin was first to go physical. You have know way of knowing that.
It is equally likely that Zimmerman (who is from the recording is clearly exercised by the situation) pushed Martin and Marin retaliated. You simply don’t know who got physical first.
All we know for certain was that Zimmerman was behaving in a way the Neighbourhood Watch forbids. The rules are not arbitrary. They are founded on responsibility and good sense
Zimmerman was foolish and reckless. The NW connection makes that even more culpable. The result was a death.
Yes, Zimmerman does have a right to be stupid.
He does not have a right to avoid the result of his stupidity.
To try and deal with this matter simply as that of two people accidentally meeting and fight ensuing – is plain insanity. You can’t put the fight into a bubble and shut out all else.
Nobody will ever know who pushed or struck first.
We will always know who was being a wingnut. (Hint: That would be Zimmerman.)
“the evidence would be identical, if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin defended himself, stood his ground so to speak.”
leander22,
Do you have any evidence of Zimmerman grabbing Martin? Anything? I didn’t think so.
When you come up with some evidence, then we can discuss whether or not Martin would have then been justified in punching Zimmerman in the nose.
Malisha,
You really don’t understand. I’m sorry for that. It must make the world a difficult place to live in.
You don’t understand reasonable doubt or burden of proof. You don’t understand that the prosecution would need to somehow justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Without any injuries to Martin (other than his own knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound) it’s going to be hard to convince a jury that Martin was justified when he punched Zimmerman. (We have evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman. We don’t have any evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin prior to that.)