The evidence for the trial of George Zimmerman is slowly taking form. Yesterday, a medical report was disclosed by the family physician of George Zimmerman where the doctor found a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin. While this is the family physician, it would still constitute important evidence in claiming self-defense, particularly when combined with accounts from the paramedics that found injuries to Zimmerman. An autopsy report released today also revealed bruises on Martin’s knuckles, consistent with a fight (though they could be bruises sustained in self-defense). In the meantime, the Justice Department has indicated that it may bring hate crime charges against Zimmerman — charges that would be questionable on the current evidence that has been made public in the case.
The prosecution is likely to explore any differences between the paramedics and the doctor. Some issues are likely to be raise such as whether the paramedics saw a broken nose and whether such “closed fractures” can be easily missed by a paramedic on an street at night. Moreover, such injuries could be sustained by Zimmerman as a result of Martin defending himself.
The leak of possible civil rights charges may be designed to try to get Zimmerman to accept a plea with prosecutors. I have reservations about such a charge based on the evidence that is available — as I have expressed over the overcharging in the case as second degree murder. This case has already raised serious questions of the influence of public pressure on the prosecutors. While there may be additional evidence that would support such a hate crime charge, the current evidence, in my view, falls short of the threshold showing needed for such a charge. The crime is defined as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The “in part” component gives some wiggle room for prosecutors but you need to still show clear intent on the race issue. While state courts have rejected the need under state law for race to be the “primary” factor, there remains unease in cases where race appears a secondary issue. The Justice Department has sometimes moved against defendants who were acquitted of the same offense under state law as in the Pennsylvania case involving the death of a hispanic man. These cases raise serious questions of when trash talk reflects racial motivations.
We have seen the same type of claim under “Stand Your Ground” in mixed-race shootings without such hate crime allegations. I have previously express unease over the standard used for hate crime charges and the decision to pursue some cases while refusing to move on others with similar or stronger facts. This is a case that could be explained as a crime-obsessed as opposed to a race-obsessed neighborhood watch captain. Indeed, Zimmerman’s past violent record may indicate that he is prone to violence generally. There has been no new evidence revealed that shows that Zimmerman’s shooting was race motivated. His own mixed race background and injuries from the fight militate against such a charge. They certainly do not rule out such a charge, but more has to be shown in my view.
The case is already over-charged as second degree murder. If the Justice Department is going to bring a hate crime charge, it better have stronger evidence than we have seen from Angela Corey to support a second-degree murder charge. Corey was in my view clearly affected by the public pressure in the case in charging the case as second degree murder rather than manslaughter. I am equally troubled by Attorney General Eric Holder discussing the case in public speeches when his department is supposed to be conducting an unbiased review of the facts involving a man who has not been convicted of a crime.
The combination of the leak on the civil rights charges and Holder’s public statements leave the impression that the DOJ will not accept acquittal as an answer in the case if Zimmerman does prevail. The impression, in my view, diminishes the appearance of due process and fair trial for the accused.
What do you think?
Source: ABC
anon, Just because you started a fight and are losing, does NOT mean you are entitled to use deadly force. Absent any weapon in Martin’s hand, Zimmerman had NO legal right to pull a gun on him and shoot him dead. Hell, even cops are not allowed to use deadly force in such a situation and they must meet relative level of force with that level.
If I were there and saw Z pull a gun. I would pull mine and tell him to put his down or HE DIES. The injuries Z got were so minor that he was NOT being beaten to an inch of his life. If Z had major concussions and massive head wounds, he MIGHT have a case. His nose would have to be flattened to his face, and large pool of blood would have to be where the fight happened. All of that is absent and the most Z got was a minor scuffing and scratches on his head.
Don’t do that. They weren’t two “players in [a] tragedy.” One of them initiated, prolonged and ultimately produced this tragedy. The other was trying to exit from it and there was NO EXIT.
Interesting. I didn’t call one the protagonist and one the antagonist.
But so far the evidence I have seen is that even though Zimmerman initiated the event, and as the cop said, the whole thing could have been avoided had Zimmerman just sat in his car, the testimony of the one witness that Martin was beating Zimmerman up is at the moment compelling to me.
Regardless of what an asshole Zimmerman may have been, I haven’t seen anything yet that justifies any sort of physical encounter.
Zimmerman is allowed to be a verbally abusive jackass that inappropriately challenges Martin in the night, and Martin is still not allowed to touch Zimmerman. And vice-versa of course.
I don’t think all tragedies have to have a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes they have two good guys, or two bad guys, or just two humans in a rotten situation.
Given what we know from the tapes of Zimmerman’s state of mind, I think it is a reasonable asumption that Martin either confronted Z, or Zimmerman grabbed Martin from behind, In either case, there is no question that Zimmerman considered Martin a criminal. Thus, he had every reason and expectation that he had the right to fight and/or stop Martin. So it is more than likely Z initiated physical contact in either case since he already has a prior assault on record on a COP! Martin has no such record, Zimmerman DOES, and on a COP for crying out loud. THAT takes some balls and major aggression issues. Then we DO know Zimmerman had script and probably taking drugs too. The level of THC in Martin is negligible and simply says he smoked dope 4 to 5 days ago.
AS for the contention that Martin was doing drugs when he went to the store can be disproved since we KNOW when he left home, and when he got to the store. From what i have seen it is improbable he had time to do any..
Oh I just read the whole post Manny O put up where he ended up speculating that the death of Trayvon Martin was the cure for all the burglary problems in the neighborhood!
OMG OMG, this is a symptom of something so sick that there simply MUST be a phrase coined for it and a book written about it, MUST, RIGHT NOW!
It brings to mind the fact that early on, when the Zimmerman defense folks were justifying what he did (and the police inaction about it) by saying that there had been a bunch of burglaries in the neighborhood and “a shooting,” I kept looking for reports of the shooting. I wanted to see who had shot whom. I looked and looked and guess what — could not find any reports of any shooting in the neighborhood. Then I realized that the report of the shooting had dropped out of the media and the blogs, and all that we heard about was burglaries and shoplifting. Shooting forgotten about, OK?
Then Taafe goes on TV and says Zimmerman was “fed up” by all the crime.
The Z-Defense Team just HAD to show that it was crime that got Martin killed, not Zimmerman who got Martin killed.
And now we have a post-mortem done by a Z-Defense Team guy who was obviously outraged that murder charges were leveled against his hero:
Retroactively Manny O attributes a crime wave to Trayvon Martin.
Manny, why don’t you kill somebody to stop the crimes presently being committed in whatever state you live in? Be sure to pick someone who has no criminal record and NO GUN.
Anon, “And of course, both of players in this tragedy were involved in drugs in one way or another.”
Don’t do that. They weren’t two “players in [a] tragedy.” One of them initiated, prolonged and ultimately produced this tragedy. The other was trying to exit from it and there was NO EXIT.
When people say that two domestic partners are “players in a tragedy” after one of them is killed by the other, it is at least a little more understandable. But when you take two strangers, and one of them spots, reports, follows, and kills the other, that’s not “players in [a] tragedy.” One of them did not play. He WAS played.
Manny O, you’ve really gone too far now.
“Regarding the calls of “foul” over saying Martin was high on drugs during his unusually violent behavior that night”
What unusually violent behavior that night?
Do you know for a fact that beating up a Hispanic stranger at night was unusual for Trayvon Martin?
Do you know for a fact that Trayvon Martin’s behavior in beating up George Zimmerman — BEATING UP GEORGE ZIMMERMAN — was not a result of George Zimmerman smacking Martin’s cell phone out of his hand while asking, “What are you doing here?”
Do you know for a fact that…
Well, the point is just that whenever you assume something, you embed it in a sentence saying “when he” or “after he” or the like, to slip it in as if it were already a “fact in evidence.”
But when anyone else points out what really CAN be proven about what took place that night, you come up with semantic argument-like sound bytes that you think signify that their rendition of the obvious is untrue.
Even the police knew that they couldn’t change the fact that Zimmerman chased after and started a confrontation with Martin. Everybody knows that. The Governor gave a little one-sentence comment that the SYG law did not apply to this case (well it does, but only for Martin’s actions, which is now moot because of his death) and yet everybody acts like it might be involved somehow. But useless defensive arguments about Zimmerman not being the pursuer, about the poor fellow being ambushed by an unarmed youth who only minutes before was trying to “run” and “get away,” are just that: useless defensive arguments. I don’t think O’Mara’s going to rely upon them.
Yeah, I don’t think I’m healthy enough to live Grace Slick as she lived back in the 60s.
It’s actually a very nicely done, not official video of that song. I kind of regretted including it, that was pleased that whoever made it did a good job.
One of the points being of course that Zimmerman appeared to have been on contradictory drugs, one to focus is mind, one to put him to sleep. And of course, both of players in this tragedy were involved in drugs in one way or another.
That should be “love” not live!
Anon,
Great song. You have to live Grace Slick!
Oh Manny, now just implies that all the robberies will end with the death of Trayvon Martin. Look, if I was a robber, I would stay the hell away from that neighborhood too with all the media and police attention. What a horrible thing to say. Slander with no evidence.
Zimmerman saying he would not follow Martin is not supported by the evidence at all. Why didnt he tell the dispatcher he would be in his parked truck? Because he was still following Martin.
And NO, ask the police or anyone who knows about the effects of marijuana. It does not make people violent, even chronic users. The prescription drugs Zimmerman was taking, well, that is a different story. They have all sorts of wacky side effects.
Adderall and Temazepam, look them up. George is taking sleeping pills and pills for ADHD or narcolepsy…….
“Anon — he did not give a report that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the truck and jumped him, did he?”
Yeah, okay, sometimes I’m slow, but no, he didn’t appear to, but who is “he” anyway, seriously who are you talking about?? And what’s the importance of that?
You can say its “cavil” but that’s not the point. Neither is the point what a jury can be “fooled” into doing or not doing.
The point was you asserted a fact that is simply not a fact let alone a stubborn fact. A stubborn fact doesn’t require someone to be or not to be rational/reasonable, its defacto. No opinion is required to be rendered from the obsever
Here is a fact:
Zimmerman shot Martin
This is not a fact
Zimmerman followed and produced a confrontation with Martin
You can ignore the salient fact that Zimmerman agreed not to follow Martin, and cynically assume Zimmerman just did it anyway, but that is just a cynical assumption…not a fact and certainly not a stubborn fact
Regarding the calls of “foul” over saying Martin was high on drugs during his unusually violent behavior that night
There is no test on this planet that can definitively prove someone was technically “high” at some arbitrary point in time.
What does exist are drug tests that are known to show that drug X was taken by person Y one or more times going back at least Z hours or days.
They found drugs in BOTH Martins blood and urine. Here is why thats important and why it points to him probably just finished doing drugs…could have been why he wanted to get out of the house so he could fire up the drugs
The THC only stays in the blood stream for “a few hours” in casual users. Urine it can be like 30 days. If he was a chronic multi-day user of drugs it could stay 12-24 hours in his blood, but still its damning because it means he would a multiple time a day user
Also…realize he wasn’t immediately blood tested, it had to have happened at least hours later, maybe even days later…and yet STILL there was drugs in his blood which means he was almost certainly HIGH ON DRUGS while he was assaulting Zimmerman. And it also means he was most likely a CHRONIC DRUG USER.
If it was just a urine test…sure maybe he just got some second hand drug smoke from his bad drug using friends when they were hotboxing their car…(we’ll just ignore the drug related school suspension)
But the blood test…well that’s not much else to say…and its going to be up to Mr Crump to try to tenuously prove, that Martin wasn’t a chronic drug user high on drugs on the night in question and nevermind the school suspension and nevermind the wedding rings, diamond necklaces, bracelets, and large screwdriver in his bag, “he just found those…shame on you for thinking he stole them”
For those that think drugs makes you more mellow…not necessarily. Every drug affects people differently. That why there are happy drunk and mean drunks, same applies to any other mind altering substance.
Now for some upfront speculation…I speculate that Martin was out getting high after being cooped up in his house. He’s walking back with some snacks to combat the cotton mouth from the drugs that he knew would onset given his historical experience with the drugs and decides to take the long way back so he can actually case the houses in his own family’s community for an upcoming burglary so he can increase his collection of stolen jewlery or other sellable items, possibly to buy more drugs or other status symbols yearned for by young blossoming criminals.
Zimmerman saw this young black male doing what so many young black males had either gotten away with or busted for in the previous two weeks (casing/burglary/robbery) and I bet there have been no more burglary’s and robberies in this community ever since.
That’s what they call “cavil,” Manny. If Zimmerman’s hope for acquittal is the collective decision of any jury that Zimmerman did not necessarily follow Martin and did not “produce a confrontation” with Martin, I will actually lower my estimation of the competence of his counsel. I will tell you that an argument can go on from now until doomsday and most rational people ironing out all the known facts about Zimmerman’s spoken words that were recorded on 2/26/2012 before and after the death of Trayvon Martin will conclude that Zimmerman followed Martin and brought on a confrontation. Those of the rational people who actually believe that Martin had a right to defend himself against an armed stranger will conclude that Zimmerman committed either murder or a lesser included offense, unless he pleads out insane.
Hi Malisha –
There is just no clear evidence that indisputably has Zimmerman “producing a confrontation” with Martin.
Lets start with the 911 call…Martin is at one point coming towards Zimmerman, then walks off in another direction. Zimmerman starts to follow to continue to observe him when the dispatcher asks if he is following him and he says he is, and then the dispatcher says it is not needed, AND ZIMMERMAN SAYS “OK”
At least according to the 911 call that is clearly agreement. Zimmerman is assenting and he stops following Martin. The news loves to cut the recording short before Zimmerman says “ok” but there it is clear as day
If Dad says to Child, Dont you ever do X again, and then Child says “ok” that means the child agrees and will not do it again.
In a statement by ZImmerman he said Martin came upon him after he lost sight of Martin and was merely going about his business (not stalking Martin)
So again, where is your “stubborn fact” that shows indisputably Zimmerman stalked Martin?
The truth is you don’t know that Martin didn’t come back and actually produce a confrontation with Zimmerman. You just don’t know that, you may not think that nice Martin boy on drugs and suspected of multiple instances of larceny could do such a thing, but thats not the point
The point is there is NO STUBBORN FACT AT ALL that shows Zimmerman went after Martin ultimatley
To the contrary, the 911 call shows he didnt as he 100% agreed to not follow Martin.
So is there anything else you have that indisputably shows Zimmerman followed Martin and produced the confrontation, cause right now you have nothing in that regard
Anon — he did not give a report that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the truck and jumped him, did he?
I have to head out, time for my ex to deny visitation again.
Of course he wasn’t high. Just the news reports say nonsense like that, as if it matters, when all it does is create some diversions for people to grab onto who can’t keep ahold of the salient facts — the stubborn salient facts.
O’Mara will keep ahold of the stubborn salient facts. I don’t think he will risk a trial, but if he does, I will watch for Zimmerman’s testimony.
As to conspiracy theories, those will have to await the feds’ investigative reports. They might try not to deal with the issues at all, who knows?
“By the way, “more and more witnesses” always collaborate down the line with ANY government cover-up. ”
Yeah, but I was snarking about a citizen who witnessed the events that evening and reported them that evening.
By the way, “more and more witnesses” always collaborate down the line with ANY government cover-up. ANY COVER-UP. Why? Because down the line, when the thing begins to unravel, the initial cover-up artists need the help of more and more people to back up their obviously faked-up false and essentially foolish stories. If they have something on somebody, that somebody will become a support-team member in the cover-up. Oldest story in the book. And a big damn book it is. You can see this in action in Brooklyn, NY, where Hynes, the prosecutor, has had to get more and more people (including but not limited to lawyers and government officials) involved in the cover-ups that he protects. As the concentric circles widen, the concentric circles of coercion also widen. People get fired, lose their pensions, get prosecuted for petty idiotic infractions, get their cars destroyed, get denied benefits they are entitled to, get black-listed, get every kind of trouble that a prosecutor can make, and this is a relentless process that has no conscience to it and that will go to any length. This is well known among intelligent cautious people. It is the official “knee-breaking” activity of the government cover-up agent.
So if the police covered up a crime to start with, and then the s**t hit the fan, and it was a big enough fan, SURE they will have people coming in to say everything they did was correct. They’ll get their rewards later, just like a jailhouse snitch who lies to send someone to the death chamber.
Old old old old old old story. Big big big big book.