We don’t know if that is the argument they are going to be making. It sounds like they are not all that concerned with his injuries, but rather other elements of his story.
And they can still argue he wasn’t injured at the scene of the crime without looking at Zimmy’s medical records.
Memorize 260 house numbers. No.
I would have made a diagram, but Zimmerman was on the way to Super-Target not watching so why would he have it with him even if he made one.
You seem to think Zimmerman is some sort of super-villain. If I was feeling generous I might guess his IQ at 100, but probably lower.
What, specifcally, would make it inadmissible?
Why should we assume it’s admissible if we don’t even know who took it or when it was taken? We don’t even know for sure if that is Zimmerman. All we know is that some anonymous person says it is.
Actually I misspoke. It it would be the responsibility of the State Attorneys office to collect the medical evidence, not the police. The police collect the preliminary evidence and the SA decide if further investigation is required.
Do those things make it inadmissible, or is it admissible, though not particularly good evidence?
I read parts of your long cite. The only relevant thing I gleaned is that Zimmerman would have scored 15/15 on their scale, and be classified as having a mild head injury, at worst. Nothing in your cite I saw supported your argument that minor head injuries require immediate transport to the ER. Nor does this bizarre claim match any reality I am familiar with. It’s just dumb. We see football players receive diagnosed concussions all the time, and they aren’t transported by ambulance to the hospital without exhibiting other symptoms.
A million pardons for being off by two years on Zimmerman’s age.
Besides, this whole line of reasoning is retarded. Zimmerman identifies Martin from a distance as late teens. Later, he describes him as being a little younger than 28. From this, we are supposed to conclude he is guilty of 2nd degree murder? It doesn’t make a lick of sense.
In the story above, the key element occurs in this sentence: “…starts to answer her while also appearing to be reaching out to touch her…”
As an aside, I will point out that the record we know of is devoid of any evidence that shows Zimmerman appeared to be reaching out to touch Martin.
But we’re talking about your hypothetical Martina. Yes: if the man reaches out to touch Martina, that is an act that communicates a threat coupled with a situation that creates a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. That’s assault, and Martina is entitled to defend herself.
But to reach this conclusion, you asked me to assume the truth of a key statement – one for which we have no evidence in the present case.
From my perspective, it doesn’t make him guilty, just stupid. It doesn’t help his case, and I can’t see what he thought he had to gain by saying it.
But you said assuming it is admissible is stupid. I’m asking you what you think would be needed to make the picture admissible, and how unlikely you think it would be for Zimmerman’s defense team to get whatever that is.
In other words, is it a stupid assumption?
Earth
“Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.”
― Steven Wright
I’ll try to say this as simply as possible.
No-one has to prove that the killing of Martin was justified under the law.
Please, tell me what part of that you don’t understand, and I’ll try to explain it, but frankly I don’t see how anyone can fail to get it.
Thank you! And yes, I know we don’t currently have evidence that that is what happened, but the only evidence we have that it is not what happened is the (presumed) testimny of the man who killed Martin and who has an excellent motivation to lie.
So I’m not arguing that this or that is proved or not, because nothing is yet proved. My point has been and remains: there is at least an even chance that Martin was justified in becoming physical with Zimmerman. Accepting for the moment, for the intellectual exploration, that my scenario is true (let’s pretend someone comes along who saw Zimmerman reach his hand towards Martin, and Martin throw the punch) what happens to Zimmerman’s self-defense story AND his prospects of being nailed on 2nd degree?
If my scenario is the accurate one, and it is proved to the satisfaction of a jury, does not that eliminate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim due to his having been the aggressor?
It would seem that it does. And that has been what I have said all along.
If the person who sold the picture to ABC was planning on remaining anonymous, they were pretty careless. They didn’t remove the EXIF data from the file. We already know the picture was taken by a neighbor with a iPhone 4s, which should narrow it down. I’m not sure if the Unique ID field could identify which phone took it, but it might. I wonder if the GPS was enabled?
Not according to the law.
Well evidently I’m not and your simply repeating this isn’t helping. This is what I understand to be the suituation:
George Zimmerman willfully and knowingly fired his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest, killing him. This is a fact that Zimmerman has admitted is true.
If the killing was legally justified, he will not be convicted of any crime.
If the killing was not legally justified, he will be convicted of second degree murder, which is what he’s been charged with, or perhaps manslaughter.
In order to avoid being convicted of unlawfully causing the death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman must either
What part of that do you believe to be inaccurate?
Part 2. You don’t seem to be living in the same country as the rest of us. In the United States, the prosecution has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t.
That’s not not what Zimmerman “solely” described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong.
Unless an expert or a state official has vouched for the authenticity of that pic and the credibility of the person who took it, then yes I think it’s stupid not only to assume that it’s admissible, but to decry the state for not citing it in their arrest affidavit.
Even if that pic is legitimate, we have no reason to believe anyone involved in the investigation knew about it.
(2) is inaccurate. If we get to trial, then George must do (1). If he does, then the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was NOT justified.