I more-or-less understand the different “spins.” My question is about the specific facts of the altercation. Which of the two was on top, in the prosecutor’s scenario? Surely they must have a plausible reconstruction of the event in mind to ask jury to convict.
I thought (rashly?) that the Martin-on-top-of-Zimmerman altercation was not in dispute, and Manalo’s testimony made me go “Whaaat??!?”
I have not heard the prosecution offer an actual specific account of what they think happened. I have yet to hear a plausible one from any anti-Zimmerman folks either.
You mean the Manalo that on the stand admitted that her decision that Zimmerman was on top came from looking at pictures of Martin when he was 12?
… I’ve been skimming the testimony, which gets tedious.
I’m not a lawyer. To what extent is prosecution allowed to “prep” its witnesses, pointing out flaws and helping them avoid such mistakes? Did prosecution fail to do its job, or were they just not allowed to meddle?
But that was not a mistake. That was what the witness said both before the trial and in her testimony in the trial. She claimed that the “bigger man” was on top and she determined which was the “bigger man” by looking at pictures. When the defense asked which pictures, she pointed at the pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was 12.
Of course, the defense then wanted to show her the videos from 7-11, with Trayvon Martin towering over the 5’-10" clerk (Zimmerman is 5’-8"). The Judge did not allow them to do that. But the jury has already seen those videos.
Martin was 6’0" and 160 pounds. You must not see a lot of towers.
There was a scuffle, Zimmerman got pissed that someone was challenging his self-granted authority to patrol, stalk, and detain, he took out his gun, he shot Martin.
The wounds don’t show Zimmerman being in danger of his life, and they do show that his story about having blows rained upon him and his head slammed into the sidewalk was made up. What are we left with? An impulsive guy with previous incidents of poor anger management, armed, dealing with someone who’s just pissed him off by refusing to submit to his wannabe cop routine. Not hard to figure out how it gets from there to the kid having a hole in his chest. The subsequent exaggerations of the severity of the fight to try to establish grounds for self-defense with lethal force are exactly what someone who committed murder on the spur of the moment and is now trying to get away with it should be saying. Unfortunately for him, they don’t match the physical evidence.
And you base that absurd speculation on what evidence, precisely?
What does whether his injuries left him in fear for his life have to do with anything? That’s neither the standard required to kill in self defence, nor Zimmerman’s reason for doing so. Also, those injuries are, both through common sense and the testimony of the medical professional who examined him, perfectly consistent with his story of having been punched and beaten against the ground.
Zimmerman’s already been shown not to be a wannabe cop, so it would be a good idea to drop that line before you look even more ridiculous. Also, he was legally armed, so that fact doesn’t affect his guilt or innocence. And thirdly, you have no reason whatsoever to think that he even attempted to get Martin to submit to him. There is, quite literally, zero evidence for that. You are making it up, based solely on prejudice.
Please show where his story is inconsistent with the physical evidence, preferably without contradicting medical professionals who actually examined him.
Of course, you won’t do this, you’ll either ignore the request, insult my post and reasoning without any cause, or make shit up again.
He must be taller than the goalposts, too.
He had no bruises on his head. He had no concussion. He had a cut about the size of a shaving wound. That is not what happens to people who get repeatedly slammed into concrete hard enough to cause them to fear for their lives.
His nose was bloodied. He didn’t complain of it being broken, or his breathing being obstructed. His face wasn’t caved in. His eyes weren’t swollen and he was showing no other evidence of burst blood vessels in his face. He didn’t have any wounds requiring hospitalization. That is not what happens to people who are punched in the face “25 to 30 times.”
His injuries are consistent with a low-level, nonlethal fight. They provide no guidance at all on who started the fight or who was winning it. They strongly suggest that the fight was not a danger to Zimmerman’s life. They conclusively prove that Zimmerman’s account of the fight is a lie.
His family said he was 6’3’'. Do you only believe them when it suits you?
This should be a good object lesson for you. Let’s work through it. What’s more likely to be true, the coroner’s report, or his parents memories? I’d say the physical evidence, that is, the report. So, his parents must be lying. It’s impossible that they could be mistaken, they have perfect recall, just as you imagine Zimmerman should have.
Or, we could assume it’s a mistake. Not that many people would know exactly how tall someone else is, even someone close to them, unless they’ve had reason to measure them. I’d guess all they were really sure of is that Martin was tall, and I’d also guess that, as he was skinny, he looked taller than he was.
So, who was the “bigger man” as described? Well, Martin is at least four inches taller, which is hard to miss even when they’re on the ground, and he was wearing baggy clothes, which might have disguised his skinniness. Zimmerman’s weight was described by the police as 200lb in February last year, and 185lb in April, when he was arrested. Without knowing for sure, I’d take the latter to be more accurate as they would pay more attention at the point of arrest. Certainly, he didn’t lose 15lb in two months. Zimmerman was certainly heavier, but not massively so, certainly nowhere near the size he is now. 30-40lbs heavier than Martin seems reasonable.
So, who’s the bigger man? Is it Zimmerman, beyond reasonable doubt? Would any reasonable person, seeing the two of them, say Zimmerman? No. We can’t conclude from someone saying the bigger man was on top that it was definitely Zimmerman.
That is how to analyse evidence, compare witness statements with physical fact, and see what conclusions can be drawn from it. We learn two things. Firstly, memory is extremely fallible, even in circumstances where we might expect it not to be. Secondly, there is no clear-cut answer to the question “who was bigger”.
I might as well as give my own opinion. I accept the Zimmerman story as more-or-less correct; the exact extent of his injuries or Martin’s violence may not be clear, though guesstimating that may be essential for the verdict.
Apprehension of criminals or suspects is a job for uniformed law enforcement personnel. They are known to have guns and, anyway, probably brandish the weapon before firing. Citizens may need to act in emergency situations, but for a non-uniformed person to confront a man suspected only of wearing a hood and walking slowly in the rain is absurd. Bringing a concealed gun to a likely fist fight shows reckless disregard for his fellow human being.
Some people lose their tempers easily. A black teenager feeling mistreated might be an example. He would probably not have attacked a uniformed police officer brandishing a weapon; to expect him to give the same courtesy to a jackass wannabe with a concealed weapon is absurd. Martin knew Zimmerman was stalking him; for all he knew Zimmerman was a criminal. Martin probably showed poor judgment but shouldn’t have had to pay for it with his life. By creating a situation that could easily lead to the homicide of an innocent, Zimmerman violated human decency. What crime, if any, he should be charged with for that, I don’t know.
Eventually, due to the situation provoked by Zimmerman’s arrogance and Martin’s poor judgement, Zimmerman needed self-defense. He should have known the gunshot he administered would likely be fatal. If he thought his own life was in danger the gunshot would be justified. If he was afraid he’d need stitches, or break his nose? I don’t know. Since, in this country with its absurd love-affair with guns, homicide is justified for someone who feels cheated of $150, as long as it’s night-time, Zimmerman may be technically “innocent.” But I’d be happy to see him sent to prison.
No, they do not. Not even slightly. They are entirely consistent with it. Why do you think the medical professional at the trial said that, if it wasn’t true? Why do you think people saw it happen, if it didn’t? How do you think the injuries occurred, if not in that fashion?
Also, please cite that he had no bruising to the back of his head, either from a medical examination or photograph in the days after the fight. Absence of evidence, yet again, is not evidence of absence, and the bruising wouldn’t show instantly. Why do you claim that as another fact, and what is your evidence?
Your meandering attempt to prove that the coroner doesn’t know how to use a tape measure has resulted in you concluding that, BECAUSE “memory is extremely fallible,” we need to believe people guessing the height of someone rather than the result of his corpse lying on a table being measured. That’s the level of contortion that Team Zimmerman is going to.
No, they’re not. Zimmerman’s injuries are simply not consistent with being punched in the face 25 times and having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete. You have no conception of what those things are if you truly believe this.
This is an absurd statement. Yes, absence of evidence OF AN INJURY most certainly is evidence of absence of that injury! You’re confusing this with an argument over the existence of God or something.
The coroner’s report said he was 71 inches tall. How tall is that in feet, using Team Zimmerman math?
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Try reading.
The whole bloody point is that one should believe the coroner, because that’s what is actually true, and that that minor mistake by his parents doesn’t make them evil liars. Just as any minor mistake about an unimportant detail (such as, say, exactly where someone’s hands were) makes Zimmerman a murderer.
Really, try responding to the arguments people make, not the straw men in your imagination.
Cite for Zimmerman saying he was punched 25 times. The report I read said he didn’t know how many, but it felt like 25 (or whatever the large number was). If Martin’s parents can exaggerate a detail, so can Zimmerman. It remains that his injuries are entirely consistent with being punched in the face and bashed against the ground.
Not at all. Do I, currently, have a bruise on my arm? Can you say that, because you have no evidence either way, I definitely do not? Of course you can’t.
There’s no report of Zimmerman’s bruising or lack of it from the days after the incident, to my knowledge, only a doctor’s examination that confirms the broken nose. Which is, of course, the important injury as it’s the one that, should he choose to claim it, would justify lethal self defence.
Would it have hurt you to read one more sentence before posting? I’ve quoted myself, the very next sentence from the ones you quoted, that should answer. I’ve even **bolded **it. But, if it’s not clear, the answer is 5’11’‘. Or, 3-4’’ taller than Zimmerman, based on the police reports.
Much taller than Zimmerman’s 5’-8"? And if you’re going to bring up weight - yes, the difference was 27lb - 158lb vs. 185lb. So - who’s the “bigger man”?
Really, these last few posts just show that neither of you are interested in actually discussing this, in reading what people say, but rather in simply attacking those who you disagree with.
If you can’t even read my post which, whilst using the rhetorical device of a counterfactual to make my point, is hardly complex or convoluted, then I’m not surprised you’re unable to comprehend and analyse the evidence in the case.