Posted on 05/16/2012 2:07:07 PM PDT by Bobbys1963
The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find.
First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.
Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.
It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. But here is what is missing: where are the injuries to Zimmerman’s hands? Where are the bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body? . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Funny, Crump can anything in his opening argument but when it comes down to producing the evidence to support his contention the well is dry.
I hope this case does not come down to “how long does it take you to prepare your grits”.
I just went there and took a look at their thread. Liberals brag that they are more intelligent than most, but when one of their members actually attempts to say something factual that goes against the emotional aspect, they turn on him like a pack of dogs. I had to laugh when one was accusing the other of being "paid" to post there by Zimmerman's family.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014121850
Thank God I'm a conservative.
An individual needs no “authority” to approach another individual he feels is acting suspiciously and ask him “What are you doing?”.
That said, Zimmerman was the elected captain of the neighborhood watch, so his behavior should not be considered out of place.
Of course, the other individual (Martin in this case) has every right to ignore that person or tell him to go to hell, but he has no right to start viciously beating him and threaten to kill him.
Have you been trained to post opinions on the internet?
Show me your license to post, otherwise I'll have to assume you are acting illegally.
“Sorry but to me that means ‘quit following the guy.’”
Even if it does, how do you know he kept following him? Getting out of the truck doesn’t prove it. There are other reasons for getting out of the truck. If it meant “quit following the guy,” as you say, was Zimmerman bound to abide it? Can the police, if that was the police, legally order you not to follow someone over the phone? I don’t know.
“Zimmerman had no authority to confront anyone IMO”
Since when do we need authority to confont others? Confrontation is not a illegal. It amazes me that people are suddenly pretending it is. If it were, a lot more people would be in jail.
“Even if he was witnessing a theft, his job was to call the police, observe license numbers, descriptions etc but never to intentionally confront”
What sort of intentional confrontation do you have in mind? I didn’t hear much of anything on the 9-11 call beyond Zimmerman observing and reporting. So far the prosecution hasn’t revealed anything more than what we’ve learned from the tape, which leads me to believe that the confrontation mentioned in the affidavit consisted of him following and reporting on Martin. That does not a violent confrontation make. Only violence, or the immediate precipitation of it through fighting words, threatening gestures, brandishing of weapons, etc., makes for an illegal confrontation. Unless, that is, someone has a restraining order against you, or something. That is not the case here.
You and the prosecution must have heard a secret tape with him yelling out “Hey, kid, I’m commin to get ya!” Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass about this intentional confrontation stuff.
“He had no training for anything like that.”
Anything like what? You haven’t yet described exactly what it is that he did, aside from following and reporting to 9-11. What did this confrontation which precipitated the fight and removed Zimmerman’s ability to assert self-defense consist of? Did he yell “Get out of my neighborhood, nigger,” or what?
“that is essentially why he is sitting where he is today”
No, he’s sitting there because he kinda sorta looks white, shot an unarmed black youth, and the MSM, the usual rabble-rousers, and various politicians went into a tizzy over it. That is, if by sitting where he is you mean specifically charged as he is. I could see him charged with manslaughter, or something, without the hoopla. But not murder 2. That’s ridiculous.
IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
BUT I am fairly certain that the concept of “fighting words” has gone by the wayside long ago, and that you simply aren’t justified in starting a physical altercation if someone used what might be considered same by some.
“she must be going for proving Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman’s supporters say he has witnesses to support his story”
If witnesses can support his story they’re free to do so, and that’d be good for his case. But he doesn’t need to support anything. The burden is on the prosecution. They have to prove that he started the fight, and I don’t see any possible way they can. Him profiling, following, and somehow “confronting” Martin is not enough. Neither is disobeying the dispatcher, if he did.
They have to show he said or did something which left Martin free to defend himself with violence. The medical evidence tends to contradict that, and potentially witnesses may. But the point is, it’s entirely up to the DA to prove it, and I’m almost certain she can’t.
Thank you for your reasoned responses on this thread.
“I heard Crump already say that Martin’s knuckles were bruised from bravely trying to disarm a crazed Zimmerman...Martin feared for his life and tried to take the pistol away from Zimmerman, fighting for several minutes knowing that his life was in jeopardy, but lost to the larger, white man.”
I might wonder why trying to disarm someone would harm only your knuckles. And if there was a struggle which Zimmerman eventually won, why did Zimmerman not also have bruised knucles, and why were there not injuries to the rest of Martin’s body in the manner of Zimmerman. How is it possible for Martin to have so injured Zimmerman in taking away his gun and for Zimmerman to end up with the gun eventually without similarly injuring Martin? it boggles the mind.
Let’s say that’s how it happened. Fine. How does the prosecution prove it? They’d have to prove that it happened as you say, and that Zimmerman’s injuries resulted from Martin’s struggle to get the gun. How? There’s no evidence in the world that I’m aware of. This case is a loser.
I was listening to a Tampa based radio show while walking the dogs this evening and heard the black community’s first rebuttals to this new evidence. One caller’s theory is that because trayvon TUABY (the unarmed black youth) was ...unarmed, it was unfair for a grown man to introduce a gun into a fist fight. I am going to call this one the “take your beating and hope for best” theory. But my favorite from today’s callers was the man who insisted that it not possible to beat a bald man’s head on the ground against his will.
The scariest thing that I heard was a couple of callers who had listened to the 911 tapes. Their take was that someone needed visit the houses nearest the shooting and convince some of those people to “admit” what they saw that night. I feel so sorry for the people who cannot afford to get the heck out of that community. It is likely to get a whole lot crazier before this is over.
The media has too much invested in this case to rest until Zimmerman is found guilty. How much of the public has heard of the details that run counter to the media's message? How many people know that Zimmerman's great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian? If it weren't for the fact that Hispanic identity usually supersedes black, Zimmerman would be considered black--he has more African ancestry than many African Americans.
If you had your facts straight then maybe we could have a reasonable discussion. But seeing that you are locked into your ideas of what happened a reasonable discussion is out of the question.
Plus, with no witnesses, it’s going to be difficult to prove that Zimmerman used “fighting words.”
Since when does anyone need authority to confront someone else? If I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood, I have every right to follow the person on a public street, and even walk up to him/her and ask questions. As long as I don't physically assault the person or impede their ability to move, I have broken no law. If that person hits me, then they are guilty of assault, and I have every right to defend myself. But they do not have the right to "defend" themselves from my "confronting" them by attacking me physically.
CCW is proliferating for a very good reason.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2884488/posts
RUSH: Developments in the Trayvon Martin case, and you’d be hard-pressed to find these developments out there. There have been two dramatic developments in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. According to the ABC News, George Zimmerman’s family doctor saws him the morning after the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Here’s what George Zimmerman’s doctor found: A broken nose, two black eyes, bruises on his face and lip, two cuts on the back of his head, and a back injury.
The NBC affiliate in Florida is reporting that the medical director who performed the autopsy on Trayvon Martin found only two injuries on his body: the gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles. Welcome to the Duke lacrosse case all over again. Everything Zimmerman said about what happened to him turns out to be true after the media trying to cast him along with the civil rights coalitions of this country, the race-baiters, as abject lies. (interruption) What do you mean, not rush to judgment? It’s been two months. I’m not speculating. I’m telling you what the doctor said. There’s no speculation going on. The doctor is not speculating. The doctor did the exam the day after the incident happened. It’s all been suppressed. Nobody’s reported it. That’s the point. And there wasn’t even any media curiosity about it.”
Not today; if you're white, and they're black.
No he wasn't.
All the State needs to "prove their case" is an all-black jury....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.