What part of this page do you think supports your argument?
It isn’t true. The injuries Zimmerman had aren’t consistent with those necessitating emergency transport to a hospital.
Nothing in the news about this, so I assume it was a mistake. Either one hell of a typo or a serious mis-statement by Gilbreath.
It’s about ten years different. Zimmerman is 28.
I would question Zimmerman’s intelligence if he thought 28 is anywhere close to “late teens”.
But I don’t see your point. Zimmerman actually nailed Martin’s age correctly (late teens). When he was apologizing, he said he thought the kid was older (just a little younger than me). Which seems to imply that had he known the “truth”, his actions would have been different. But he actually did know the “truth”. It was a strange thing to say.
It’s not a hangable offense, but it’s because of stupid crap like this that Zimmerman should haven’t have said anything to Martin’s family, at least with a slew of reporters and cameras trained on him.
It is very simple. Human memory is very fallible. We like to pretend that our brains are like computers, but they aren’t. We are very fallible analog devices where our memories are constantly edited and rewritten until the original memory is lost. Actual events get mixed in with fantasy and dreams. Multiple events are are mixed and matched until any resemblance with reality. Here is a recent article on the topic.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/how-friends-ruin-memory-the-social-conformity-effect/
Here is articles specifically on legal implications:
http://koehlerlaw.net/2010/09/on-human-memory-and-eyewitness-testimony/
I did a google search on “fallibility of human memory” and got 464,000 hits.
I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. A prudent person would have clammed up and called for a lawyer whether he was innocent or not.
That having been said, yes, Zimmerman is acting exactly like I expect a not-very-savvy innocent person to act. He repeated his story to the cops several times over a period of hours, and even went back to the scene and re-enacted it.
He thinks he is legally innocent. And as far as can be determined to date (not very far) he is telling the story exactly as he did from the very beginning, because that’s how he remembers it happening, and I doubt he has had enough time to come up with a version that fits better than the truth, as he remembers it.
Whether or not he is actually, factually innocent, or at least not guilty in a court of law, remains to be determined. But apparently Zimmerman thinks he really was defending himself.
Regards,
Shodan
You have to understand the thought process. If you dont cite, he didnt see the info, and therefor, it doesnt exist. Thus, he can stay ignorant and cling to a preconceived conclusion. This is called, implausible denial.
The other tool is to simply dismiss a source cause you dont like it. It is part of the same tool.
But, just for the sake of discussion.
Multiple blunt impacts to the occipital region of the skull can cause subdural hematoma. This can cause blood to pool in the basal area of the cranium, causing undue pressure on the brain stem, herniating it through the Foramen Magnum. This will cause the patient to predispose with clonic/tonic spasm, irregular breathing and a discoloration behind the ear prior to death
But hey, I didnt cite my source, so it isnt true
Forgive my latin, its been 30 years
Every innocent person accused of a crime needs to lawyer up right away.
Assume you are factually innocent, and you agree to a series of 3-4 separate interviews with the police about the incident in which the crime you are accused of occurred. Now assume you’re human, and thus you do not have eidetic memory. The way that you tell the story will vary a little bit with each retelling, not only because specific word usage will change, but also because your memory is going to be recalled a little bit differently. Sure, you probably won’t have different recollections about material parts of the incident, but as a lay person you may not realize it but parts of the incident that seemed unimportant at the time (and thus aren’t prominent in your recollections) may be extremely important legally. Since they didn’t seem important to you, it’s possible they won’t stick out much in your mind, so the way you portray them over 3-4 separate statements could be different, and this difference could be a sign to the investigators that you are guilty.
Assuming the police as good actors, it’s still possible that if because of unique circumstances they had cause to believe you committed a crime that you did not, and then you tell a story 3-4 times in which an important (to the police, not to you) detail gets changed a little bit with each telling and all of a sudden you may have a team of police 100% convinced you are guilty. That’s a bad situation to be in for an innocent person.
That is why guilty or innocent you need to have a lawyer present for any interactions you have with police in which you are a suspect in an crime. Zimmerman has done himself virtually no favors in the first 50 some days of this thing.
Actually… The ‘question’ is quite relevant, as this the FACT that had Zimmerman not ‘profiled’ and pursued Martin neither the confrontation, nor the deadly shooting would ever have occurred.
Your reason for ‘not answering’ the question at hand is that You Have No Viable Answer… End Of Story.
What the police believe doesn’t matter. What can be proved in court is what matters. The police are supposed to gather all the evidence. This evidence goes through discovery and if the prosecution withholds any exculpatory evidence from the defense they can get in serious trouble.
I’ve been following this story since the day it broke, and I’d reason that said ‘evidence’ (read: [U ignorance) is based solely upon the fact that Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie while walking at night, and very little else.
Which begs to question: If Zimmerman was this (self-appointed) ‘high-ranking’ Neighborhood Watch Captain, wouldn’t he have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of his own ‘patrol area’ ?
Nothing about the Zimmerman defense claims make any sense whatsoever.
Of course, but this has nothing to do with discovery. Y’all are ragging on the prosecution essentially for not looking for medical evidence that contradicts it’s own medical evidence, and to me that ridiculous.
Just because the prosecution heard allegations that Zimmerman had medical proof showing his nose had been broken doesnt mean they were they obligated to dig up this proof with a court order. I don’t expect them to jump through any hoops just because Zimmerman makes a self-serving claim. The defense is more than free to offer this evidence up at trial, and the state is more than free to attack it with its own. Thats it. Discovery just means both sides have to share with each other their evidence.
I am typing on a iPad and can’t copy and paste from that article. If you’re truly interested in educating yourself, you’ll read about how such patients are evaluated and treated.
I’ve done it repeatedly when I have asked this.
Night. Man in truck, watching woman, she notes. Creeps her out. Man follows woman, watching her. She is more freaked. Decides to walk faster. Man in truck no longer visible, she relaxes and answers the phone and talks to her friend. Suddenly man is directly in front of her, she says “Why are you following me?” in a high-pitched screech. Man, who has already demonstrated his cluelessness, starts to answer her while also appearing to be reaching out to touch her…she flips completely, kicks him in the nuts, runs away screaming.
He complains to the cops that she assaulted him.
She pleads self-defense, that she had a reasonable fear of him due to his (completely idiotic and clueless) behavior.
Does she get off? Does the law recognize that even though Man was doing something that was technically legal, it was also reasonably perceived by her to be threatening, making it justified for her to kick him in the nuts?
If the answer is yes, the law recognizes this and she is found not-guilty because she was defending herself against a reasonable perception of threat, then doesn’t this also apply to Martin, who may have punched GZ in the nose, vs. kicked him in the nuts? And doesn’t that mean that GZ’s bad choices and foolish behavior, legal or not, led to Martin’s justifiably “attacking” him (I can buy that Martin may have hit GZ first, I absolutely do not for one second believe that he had GZ down and was pounding his head into cement)? And if that is so… hwo do we hold GZ accountable, or do we not, and why not?
And if the answer is no, the law would not find Woman had a reasonable fear, then I am disturbed. Because I want to know that if some guy is following me around in a his truck, then he gets out of his truck and approaches me after observing me running away from him, and reaches so much as a finger in my direction, that I can then have my sister kick his ass around the block for me before he takes one more step and I would hope the law would be ok with that. Because that dude has behaved in a manner I find extremely threatening.
Really? What have you been reading that the rest of us missed out on?
I think that’s exactly what happened.
God I hope so, because those screams in NO WAY WHATSOEVER support Zimmerman’s story.
Wow, really? On what planet does it work like this? Don’t you remember what Twain said: if you never lie, you never have to remember anything.
If GZ made contradictory statements about the important facts, then GZ is lying. If GZ is lying, there’s a reason he’s lying, and I’m pretty sure it’s because he didn’t shoot Martin to defend himself at all.
I don’t care if his nose was broken and he had a goose egg on the back of his head, because that does NOT prove that at the moment he pulled the trigger, blowing a hole in Martin’s chest, he was defending himself from Martin’s ongoing “attack”. It proves that he got hurt, and maybe it proves that Martin helped him get hurt. But since the only way that a man with a gun can sell the idea that he has to kill an unarmed man to save himself is if he is physically prevented from getting away from the attack, Zimmerman had to claim that martin was on top of him, holding him down and preventing him from getting away so he had to shoot him to stop the attack. And that’s horseshit, from all the evidence we have available. Pure, unadulterated horseshit. Almost nothing supports Gz’s (purported!) version of what happened, and I have no doubt at all that his statements to police were very contradictory. He had to think on his feet to come up with a good enough story to get away with killing Martin, and I’m sure he fucked it up plenty.
Absolutely… I recall the wife taking note of the fact that he couldn’t raise his arm/hand all the way up to ‘take the oath’ because of the restraints he was wearing.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Y’all are ragging on the prosecution essentially for not looking for medical evidence that contradicts it’s own medical evidence, and to me that ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
I think you have it backwards - if the prosecution is going to argue that Zimmerman was not injured, they are going to have to come up with something that contradicts the references to Zimmerman’s injuries in the police report.
Even if the EMT report says he wasn’t injured, they are going to have to show something to explain why the police report said he was.
Regards,
Shodan
Aren’t they “supposed” to collect only the evidence that they are legally required to collect? Bricker has told us that they would have not have been required to test Zimmerman’s blood alcohol content–even though doing so would have benefited him (if it had come out good) and the state’s case (if it had come out bad). But they didn’t have to, so we shouldn’t feel weirded out if they didn’t. I’m kind of lumping the medical records into the same laundry basket. It would have been nice if they had subpoened them, just like it would have been nice if the police had tested Zimmerman’s blood, and just like it would have been nice if the police report was more specific about the nature of Zimmerman’s injuries and mentioned whether he had been asked if he had wanted more immediate hospital treatment. And just like it would have been nice if they had contacted the best earwitness to the case right after the killing happened.
If we’re going to second guess the state, we should be second guessing them all the way down to the hilt.
His more damning statement was when he said he didn’t know he was unarmed. That suggests Zimmermans behavior would have been different if he had made a different assumption. But why should it have been different, if Martin attacked him?
I have a feeling that Zimmerman, against his lawyers advice of course, is going to testify on the stand. I might have to call in sick on that day just to watch him say all the wrong things.
I’ll say it more simply this time.
The fact that George Zimmerman was injured *******does not prove that his killing Martin was justified under the law.
Now you’re just being ridiculous, as any reasonable individual knows full-well that ‘late teens’ would be from 17-19 years of age, and ‘around’ the age of 28 (Zimmerman’s actual age, not the one you made up) is far beyond that age-group.