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
Gene – manslaughter would have been the correct way to go but, in my opinon, the prosecuter really jumped the gun (no pun intended) and went straight for a bigger charge to appease the public and (I think) to make herself look more powerful in the publics eye than what she really is. In other words, I think she did this to get more fame.
Gene – That’s you, but people who are too emotional *cough*Dredd*cough* are going to just shoot it down just like they did with this picture of injuries to Zimmerman. “Oh, that’s just a scrape, it’s not even bleeding that much, I think they are self inflicted.”
Tony C.
Asked on another thread but will put here too.
What was the decision on the wedding cake?
“I heard things.” – Robert DeNiro
@Gene H.
Because I thought some of us were thinking that up to this point a reasonable argument for the lesser and included charge was being made but that all the evidence has yet to be presented.
Some are. Some aren’t. Some have labeled Zimmerman as a sociopath psychopath.
How does this reasonable argument fact in to the statutory immunity from prosecution? That immunity is not an affirmative defense plead at trial, but an actual immunity from any prosecution. So far it looks like the only way a reasonable argument for the lesser charge can be sustainable is to ignore any legitimate claim of self defense.
If someone came up to me and said they had surveillance video showing Trayvon as the aggressor I’d say prove chain of custody and authenticity and then present the evidence if it meets those criteria.
Matt, Matt, Matt
Dredd – Nope, Mespo just pissed me off and sent me off track. You chimed in with your dumbass comment which is you just wanting to run your mouth about something. I don’t feel shitty, the evidence thus far is in favor of Zimmerman as far as I can see. The problem I have is people like you that are so damn one sided that you are going to say anything against Zimmerman because you’re too damn emotional rather than rational. You look at obvious injuries inflicted on a man by your so called “innocent child” and you say those injuries aren’t that bad. If someone came up to you and said they had surveillance video showing Trayvon as the aggressor you’d say something along the lines of “it doesn’t matter, Zimmerman asked him what he was doing in the gated community.” You are just as biased as the media as far as I’m concerned.
@Malisha
You like to employ a lot of circular reasoning. Then when questioned about it you add more of the same.
Martin would have been reasonably in fear for his life once a gun was drawn. Perhaps even when he saw that Zimmerman had a gun.
Very very VERY scared.
Why not just very very scared? Or VERY VERY scared? (Do the all caps words make a difference? Are you sure you weren’t very VERY very scared?
Because Trayvon Martin WAS in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm
Is THAT your final answer? If someone is following you, you can reasonably fear for your life or serious bodily harm, and, that being the case, then would be justified in the use of deadly force? Nothing more? “Some one was following me so I shot them” is all someone would need to say, and the shooting of that person would be justified in self-defense? (OR does that only apply to Trayvon Martin?)
@Dredd: In my single experience on a jury, the eleven people I was with cut through three days of testimony in fifteen minutes, and all had already concluded the same thing. We had a unanimous verdict in about 30 minutes.
At a murder trial I attended (I knew the victim) the same thing happened: After over two weeks of testimony, the jury convicted and gave the highest possible sentence in about 45 minutes. I imagine the same thing happened there, everybody on the jury had it figured out in the first three or four days, and then it was just a matter of venting their opinions and doing some paperwork.
I do not think it will matter a great deal, to the jury, the technical details of what constitutes 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or whatever. I think they will, as is human nature, first decide that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then mentally justify whatever they need to do in order to make sure he gets punished. Or if they are sympathetic to Zimmerman, the other way around.
The precise meaning of “depravity” or whatever won’t matter. Jurors are ALSO typically ruled by their amygdalae, and that means they will resist letting a killer go on a technicality. Jurors do not have to explain their thinking or justify their decisions; once they realize that then they are free to decide anything they feel.
Zimmerman would be best served, if he has a choice, by foregoing a jury trial and letting a judge decide his fate; he is far more likely to go free on a definition or technical point of law if a judge is deciding his fate.
“You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!”
Really.
Because I thought some of us were thinking that up to this point a reasonable argument for the lesser and included charge was being made but that all the evidence has yet to be presented.
I read through that and see nothing about media coverage, bias or race baiting factoring into the thinking at all.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm
The majority of you are looking at this like we all just watched a surveillance video of the whole altercation and shooting and now it’s our turn to see how we’d do as judge. ALL of the facts are not out yet but a lot of you apparently watched the whole thing and didn’t do anything about it by the way you are trying to paint the picture to everyone else. How about you all just WAIT until everything comes out and is out on the table before you start making definitive decisions of what you think should be done with Zimmerman. You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!
==========================================
Not really, we are just saying your case sucks on the current evidence.
Your argument on that evidence sucks worse than the evidence does.
And we don’t expect your case to get any better.
You have to do better, not us.
Self defense is something the defendant must prove, not something that the prosecution must negate in the case in chief.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
=======================================
Why did you stop talking about the evidence to go all ad hominem rogue and mavericky?
I ask that not for my edification, but for yours.
It won’t work before a jury, will work for a little while before the press.
You must feel like the evidence is getting all shitty all over you huh?
The majority of you are looking at this like we all just watched a surveillance video of the whole altercation and shooting and now it’s our turn to see how we’d do as judge. ALL of the facts are not out yet but a lot of you apparently watched the whole thing and didn’t do anything about it by the way you are trying to paint the picture to everyone else. How about you all just WAIT until everything comes out and is out on the table before you start making definitive decisions of what you think should be done with Zimmerman. You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
@mespo727272
Surely that would tell whether this photograph is evidence of a fight or “made for tv” evidence.
If it was, as you imply, “made for TV evidence” then whomever created it was pretty good. The metadata, according to ABC, indicates that it was taken by an iPhone 4S at 7:19:07 PM of 2/26/2012.
“No blood/tissue there; no fight.”
Did the police take samples from the sidewalk where Martin allegedly banged Zimmerman’s head into? If not, does the absence or evidence become evidence of absence?
Blouise – How would you like me to come out and paint a picture to all the folks posting on this site that you are racist towards blacks even though you know that isn’t true?
Matt: Malisha – No, I’m right. I can argue with anyone, does that mean I go to jail because I’m “the aggressor?” No, it means I had an arguement with someone. Once it starts being a physical confrontation then it becomes a crime, and whoever throws the first punch is the aggressor, and I’ll tell you what, you put your hands on me when I don’t want you to and it’s over for you.
Mark Esposito, Attorney in the United States: Matt:
Always threaten women or is that a little charm you picked up alongt he way?
Kids, it’s attorneys like Mark Esposito that keep us from having nice things.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Let me guess Mespo, you’re a women’s rights activist?
===========================================
And let me guess, you are a war on women activist (the ones delivering the reelection to the President)?
mespo said, “It’s looks like a voluntary manslaughter case at this juncture. We’ll know more when we get the voice comparison and the sound enhanced 911 tape.”
Yep. (TM)(C) 2012