# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 287
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5723 "2012-10-04T19:42:01Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where are the pictures of bruising? Where is the _actual medical report_ that shows a diagnosis of a broken nose? I’m confused – why doesn’t the document already linked to constitute an actual medical report? In other words, suppose he had an X-ray, and you said, “Where’s the CAT scan?” It’s true that a CAT scan is a kind of medical diagnosis, but so is an X-ray. This is an analogy, of course. Here, we have a report authored by a medical professional that shows a diagnosis of ‘Nasal bones, closed fracture.’ In what way is this not an actual medical report? As a matter of law, a jury could receive that report into evidence and rely on it, and nothing else, to decide that ZImmerman’s nose was broken. They wouldn’t have to decide that, of course. But that objection applies even if you had X-rays and a statement from the country’s premier orthopedic surgeon saying the nose was broken. I can’t tell if you’re arguing that there’s no competent evidence of a broken nose – in which case you’d be wrong as a matter of law – or if you’re arguing that this level of evidence does not personally convince you – in which case you’re obviously the sole judge of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5724 "2012-10-04T19:42:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, although there is at least some legal significance to Martin being on top of Zimmerman. > > At trial, evidence is relevant if it has some tendency to assist the finder of fact – the jury – to determine an issue of fact that is in dispute. > > In this trial, we can say with some confidence that one issue of ultimate fact to be determined by the jury is whether or not Zimmerman was engaged in self-defense. > > If the jury believes that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it makes it more likely – though by no means a certainty – that the jury would find that Zimmerman was engaging in self-defense. I understand Bricker. I live in a big city. There are instances when a person fights an attacker…people fight off muggers and rapists, for example. It happens. Some of these attackers get hurt. What is unique here is that you have a person with a firearm who followed someone and that person ended up dead. People want to nitpick here and there, but that’s the general idea. They say well, he INITIALLY followed and went back and was attacked. That can be countered. \*\*And again, I am bringing up a point that has remained unanswered. The mechanics of the FIGHT ITSELF is only but one facet of the case–an obviously important one (LOL), but not the only one. \*\* Even the mechanics of the fight that Zimmerman offered can be critiqued and don’t have to be accepted. I don’t accept them. What about the other factors? As a private citizen, what were Zimmerman’s responsibilities to another private citizen? What were Zimmerman’s responsibilities as a gun owner? He wasn’t a police officer. What good would leaving his car do? Unless he still wanted to track someone or possible go somewhere were a car couldn’t go? (maybe a passageway perhaps?) Is this really that unreasonable to think? i am sure the cops could have found him in his vehicle if he really wanted that. In Zimmerman’s 911 call, he initially said for the police to meet by the mailboxes. Then he abruptly changed it and told the police to call him instead. Why would that be? Is it unreasonable to think that he was still tracking Martin at that point? Because I guess he knew he would be moving around. Again, is this really unreasonable to think?? Also Bricker, Martin on top could simply mean he was fighting for his life. Again, is this an unreasonable interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5725 "2012-10-04T19:48:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/zimmerman\_bond\_hearing\_exhibits/george\_zimmerman\_medical\_report.pdf](http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/zimmerman_bond_hearing_exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf) > > Diagnosis: Nasal bones, closed fracture Which is wrong. Here’s what the physican assistant wrote in the report: > [@](#): > > We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation. “Likely broken” is not a definitive diagnosis. The PA’s mistake was in using an ICD code for a diagnosis when they should have only coded for symptoms. No doubt all of this will be explained in detail at trial, but if you doubt me you can read about appropriate ICD coding [here](http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/ahima/bok2_000466.hcsp?dDocName=bok2_000466). > [@cite](#): > > In the inpatient setting, if a diagnosis documented at the time of discharge is qualified as “probable,” “suspected,” “likely,” “questionable,” “possible,” or “rule out,” the condition should be coded as if it existed or was established. The basis for this guideline are the diagnostic workup, arrangements for further workup or observation, and initial therapeutic approach that correspond most closely with the established diagnosis. > > **In the outpatient setting (including physician offices), diagnoses documented as “probable,” “suspected,” “questionable,” or “rule out” should not be coded as if they are established.** Rather, the conditions should be coded to the highest degree of certainty for that encounter, such as symptoms, signs, abnormal test results, or other reason for the visit. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5726 "2012-10-04T19:50:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m confused – why doesn’t the document already linked to constitute an actual medical report? The document that **Terr** initially linked to was not the medical report. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5727 "2012-10-04T19:50:43Z")
^^^^ good rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5728 "2012-10-04T19:53:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, now, here I have to point out that a black eye is, in fact, a bruise. A bruise is simply a hematoma caused by internal bleeding into interstitial tissue. A black eye is a bruise. Where are the photos with Zimmerman having black eyes? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5729 "2012-10-04T20:04:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where are the pictures of bruising? Where is the _actual medical report_ that shows a diagnosis of a broken nose? I gave you the “actual medical report” that shows exactly that diagnosis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5730 "2012-10-04T20:04:55Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The document that **Terr** initially linked to was not the medical report. OK. But now you’ve read the medical report. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where are the photos with Zimmerman having black eyes? I have no idea. I was just responding to this line: > [@](#): > > He then forgets that his argument was about picture evidence of bruising and changes the subject, asking you about a bloody nose, two black eyes, and lacerations . I was pointing out the “bruising” and “black eyes” are not mutually exclusive. I’m not saying there were, or were not, photos showing black eyes. I will note that the same physician’s assistant reports black eyes on page 4: > [@](#): > > Eyes: PERRLA: EOMI, conjunctiva and sclerae clear. B/L black eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5731 "2012-10-04T20:06:29Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Which is wrong. Here’s what the physican assistant wrote in the report: Which part of: “Diagnosis: Nasal bones, closed fracture” is unclear to you? It’s there, in black and white. You may say it’s “wrong” (although you should probably provide us with the records of where you got your MD degree if you do) but you can’t deny there was, in fact, a diagnosis of broken nose. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5732 "2012-10-04T20:09:44Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I was pointing out the “bruising” and “black eyes” are not mutually exclusive. [/quote] That was never in doubt. > [@](#): > > I will note that the same physician’s assistant reports black eyes on page 4: Yes, but where is the photographic evidence for this? That’s the claim that was made, but no one has supported it with actual links to pictures showing a bruised up Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5733 "2012-10-04T20:11:08Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Also Bricker, Martin on top could simply mean he was fighting for his life. Again, is this an unreasonable interpretation? Not at all. Martin could have been attacked by Zimmerman, fought back in self-defense, and then gained the upper hand. But the question – again, from a courtroom perspective – is not whether there’s a reasonable scenario that indicates guilt. It’s whether there’s ALSO a reasonable scenario that indicates innocence. If there are fifteen reasonable scenarios, and fourteen of them indicate guilt, and only one indicates innocence… then Zimmerman must be acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5734 "2012-10-04T20:12:19Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > That was never in doubt. > > Yes, but where is the photographic evidence for this? That’s the claim that was made, but no one has supported it with actual links to pictures showing a bruised up Zimmerman. No clue. The only photographs I’ve seen that definitively show injuries to Zimmerman are the ones that show the scalp lacerations. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5735 "2012-10-04T20:13:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Which part of: “Diagnosis: Nasal bones, closed fracture” is unclear to you? It’s there, in black and white. You may say it’s “wrong” (although you should probably provide us with the records of where you got your MD degree if you do) but you can’t deny there was, in fact, a diagnosis of broken nose. Zimmerman was never definitively diagnosed with a broken nose. The notes on the actual medical record only confirm this. I’m very sorry that you don’t understand how to properly interpret ICD-9 codes. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5736 "2012-10-04T20:15:20Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Zimmerman was never definitively diagnosed with a broken nose. The notes on the actual medical record only confirm this. I’m very sorry that you don’t understand how to properly interpret ICD-9 codes. When the medical form sent by the office where he was seen says: Diagnosis: Nasal bones, closed fracture Then the diagnosis is broken nose. I am sorry you apparently don’t understand what “diagnosis” means. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5737 "2012-10-04T20:25:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > When the medical form sent by the office where he was seen says: > > Diagnosis: Nasal bones, closed fracture > > Then the diagnosis is broken nose. No, what that means is that you have a medical report that shows the word diagnosis printed next to the phrase “nasal bones, closed fracture”. To intrepret what this means, you need to understand how to read a medical report. You haven’t shown that you can do this. But carry on. I’m just trying to fight ignorance here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5738 "2012-10-04T20:26:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Zimmerman was never definitively diagnosed with a broken nose. The notes on the actual medical record only confirm this. I’m very sorry that you don’t understand how to properly interpret ICD-9 codes. If the jury needed – for some bizarre reason – to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had a broken nose, I think you’d be right on the mark here: this is insufficient evidence to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the definitely had a broken nose. But in the trial, the jury could conclude that it was likely Zimmerman had a broken nose. That would be of benefit for the defense. The defense would not need the jury to conclude there was a definitively diagnosed broken nose. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5739 "2012-10-04T20:33:49Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > As a private citizen, what were Zimmerman’s responsibilities to another private citizen? Same as everybody else. Zimmerman was obligated to obey the law. (So was Martin.) > [@](#): > > What were Zimmerman’s responsibilities as a gun owner? Likewise. He was obligated to obey the law. > [@](#): > > What good would leaving his car do? He said he was looking for a house number or street sign. > [@](#): > > Unless he still wanted to track someone or possible go somewhere were a car couldn’t go? (maybe a passageway perhaps?) Where are you getting this idea of a passageway from? > [@](#): > > Is it unreasonable to think that he was still tracking Martin at that point? Both Zimmerman (in the recorded 911 call) and Martin (if you believe Dee Dee) agreed that Zimmerman and Martin had lost each other at that point. > [@](#): > > Again, is this really unreasonable to think?? What evidence do you have that it’s true? We’ve got evidence (verified statements from Zimmerman, unverified ones from Dee Dee) that Zimmerman was not following Martin at that point. > [@](#): > > Martin on top could simply mean he was fighting for his life. Again, is this an unreasonable interpretation? We have the injuries to Zimmerman and the eyewitness accounts to show that Martin was winning the fight, and was not therefore in fear of his life. Because it is somewhat more plausible that the person being pinned to the ground and having his head beaten against the ground, after having his nose broken and his eyes blackened, is more likely to be the one fighting for his life. In other words, we have evidence that Zimmerman was fighting for his life. We have none that Martin was. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5740 "2012-10-04T20:47:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But in the trial, the jury could conclude that it was likely Zimmerman had a broken nose. That would be of benefit for the defense. The defense would not need the jury to conclude there was a definitively diagnosed broken nose. Sure they could. But if the defense gets up there and dramatically claims “OMG, Zimmerman had a broken nose…that’s a serious injury so of course he had reason to kill Martin!” the prosecution would be negligent if they didn’t throw into question the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries. You do this by raising questions about his diagnosis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5741 "2012-10-04T20:48:52Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Sure they could. But if the defense gets up there and dramatically claims “OMG, Zimmerman had a broken nose…that’s a serious injury so of course he had reason to kill Martin!” the prosecution would be negligent if they didn’t throw into question the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries. You do this by raising questions about his diagnosis. Absolutely true. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5742 "2012-10-04T21:00:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely true. I assume you would agree that merely throwing it into question is by no means enough - if I understand you correctly, the prosecution would have to disprove that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. And that seems like a rather uphill climb. I would expect a rational juror to understand that it is not unreasonable to conclude from a medical report that says the diagnosis is a broken nose, that Zimmerman’s nose was broken. Sure, the prosecution could claim the doctor’s diagnosis was wrong, or he was lying, but the burden of proof remains with the prosecution. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=286) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=288)