I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never said they were conclusively one or the other, I’ve only argued what Kimmy just confirmed: CAN. Up to the jury. Not a must either way.
I haven’t argued “musts” at all, I don’t believe, that appears to me to be a Team Zimmerman tactic: “This is the only possible answer! No other thing could be true in any known universe!”
Well Shaeffer then still was wrong saying that it was prosecution’s blunder to introduce the whole thing instead of just snippets, since introducing snippets would still be opening the door to defense showing the whole thing anyway.
What does this mean? No brain injuries WERE observed in this case. Hypothetical evidence is not evidence. Obviously I agree with “if the evidence was different, we should adjust our conclusions accordingly”…but the evidence is what the evidence is, not something else.
He had injuries consistent with a low-scale scuffle of minor intensity. His injuries are totally inconsistent with having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete. That’s the entire point. That goes to not only the absence of a threat to his life but to the contradictions between the physical evidence and his statement; i.e., one of his eight identifiable lies and the reason he has zero credibility and we can’t trust anything else he says about what happened or what his thought process that night was.
Bullshit. I was once knocked out cold on concrete for a considerable amount of time. Not a scratch. Anyone who has ever banged their head on ANYTHING will understand what’s involved here.
This was not a low-scale scuffle, it was a serious beat-down by description and Zimmerman had no way of knowing when it would end. You’re barking if the jury is going to believe this after the defense has it’s say. they have something like 100+ witnesses at their disposal.
Oh really? Tell it to your friend:
:rolleyes:
But Martin was a resident. He was staying there, and had a right to be there, and to walk around freely, regardless of the weather. It would be unreasonable to expect Martin to not do these things, on the chance someone might find him suspicious.
It was reckless of Zimmerman to not consider the possibility he belonged there, when there was no way Zimmerman could be familiar with everyone living there.
It was reckless of Zimmerman to follow someone he suspected of being armed, while armed himself (however legal).
It was reckless of Zimmerman to not identify himself when prompted, and not consider that following Martin would be suspicious to Martin, since Martin didn’t know what he wanted.
It was reckless of Zimmerman to both not identify himself, and then make a sudden reach into his pocket for something after pointedly not revealing his identity or intent.
The question is if all these mistakes put together constitutes the legal definition of reckless behavior.
Right, and Zimmerman was NOT knocked out. His injury was consistent with scraping his head on the ground for a second while rolling around, not with any sort of impact.
Why do people keep coming back to how easy it is to cause brain trauma by falling or being thrown onto concrete, as if that helps Zimmerman? The fact that it’s incredibly easy to cause serious injury by banging someone’s head into concrete, and Zimmerman had no serious injuries, is exactly why I don’t believe that his head was banged into concrete! What is so difficult about this?
Interesting, very interesting - didn’t have a scratch but you were ‘knocked out cold’ for a ‘considerable amount of time’. Very interesting. I’m guessing you were pretty disoriented & confused when you came to, probably had a headache and such for a while afterwards.
Remind me, how long was Zimmerman knocked out for again?
Edit: Or, on preview, what **Condescending Robot **said.
Actually, the fifth (and most likely) scenario is
The one consistent aspect of every single one of his inconsistencies or improbable statements is how each and every one relates to Zimmerman not creating the situation. He wasn’t following Martin. He didn’t get out of his truck to follow Martin. He was going back to his truck when *Martin *approached him. He stepped backwards towards his truck when Martin approached him. He was sucker-punched as he reached for his phone ‘to dial 911’. Martin said he was going to kill me. Martin was reaching for my gun.
I don’t think he’s guilty of 2nd degree murder, and I don’t think he should have been charged as such. I do think he’s guilty of…well, not really sure what the proper legal charge would be - some form of reckless homicide or manslaughter, I guess?
So the doctor who said his injuries were consistent with being bashed against concrete was lying under oath then? Why would she do that?
Zimmerman’s injuries do not disprove his story. It’s as simple as that. Someone with those injuries, who was still under attack, could be in legitimate fear of death or serious injury.
You mean the “physician’s assistant” who examined him the next day, was asked on the stand if the concrete could have been the cause of the abrasion, and said “it could have been?” Sure looks a lot different when you report on what actually occurred.
Cite please. I don’t recall any doctor testifying to this.
Unless one of the neighbors happens incidentally to be an MD, no doctor has yet testified in the case: List of witnesses called in the George Zimmerman trial
(Hirotaka Nakasone is listed as “Dr.” on the witness list; he has a PhD in “speech science” and of course wasn’t testifying about medical issues.)
You’ve summarized my own opinion perfectly. Zimmerman is very culpable morally, but it isn’t clear what charge, if any, should have been filed.
In the excitement he certainly could have feared (at least within “reasonable doubt”) “great bodily harm.” This makes the whole trial silly, no?
The fact that a wannabe vigilante like Zimmerman could carry a concealed weapon, provoke a fist fight, use the weapon to kill a teenager guilty only of reacting to an asshole, but not be guilty of murder should teach us something.
Some hope to achieve “closure” or “catharsis” from Zimmerman’s conviction. In fact, it’s his acquittal that should teach a strong lesson about our unfortunate gun culture.
I think Serino’s testimony will carry a lot of weight with the jury on this topic. The defense kept trying to goad him into saying something about the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries, and he dismissively said, “He had some minor injuries.” His words and demeanor revealed a man who didn’t believe Zimmerman was in a serious fight. He pointed out how skinny Martin was. It was clear to the jury that Serino didn’t think Zimmerman was involved in a “serious beat-down.” As a guy who’s probably seen the aftermath of a lot of fights, that’s going to have an impact.
Yes, precisely that. The medical evidence that his injuries were consistent with his story. Thanks for the correction on the exact nature of medical professional who made the statement.
+1. Many of the specific words he used in his interviews with police seem very deliberately chosen to build a self defense case. “I was in fear for my life.” “He reached for my gun.” “I was defending myself and I shot him.” Those are also the parts of his story where he gets the most vague, and suddenly can’t remember, but he’s more than happy to provide ample details to the parts of the story that don’t incriminate him in any way.
I think he realized right away that he had screwed up and immediately started painting this scenario that’s well practiced among many CCW permit holders. The best lies are the ones that are mostly the truth, so he can be 99% honest (he was on top of me and my jacket came up) and just inject a little lie to help his story (and I felt his arm move across my body).
And he’s suppose to wait for this to happen. Are you insane?
The person who screwed up was the attacker, Martin.