With the preface of not being a medical expert (and knowing how important titles are to you when making medical statements) it seems pretty logical to me based on common sense, personal experience and parenting a 3 year old that a body part (skull, knee, elbow, etc) coming into contact with concrete will only leave considerable “visual damage” if there is some additional movement (say lateral) to cause skin abrasion.
If you make direct contact with no additional movement, you can break the skin, but the majority of the damage/worry when dealing with the skull would be internal concussion injury to the brain.
I have to believe many medical experts would in fact confirm that the external damage can be very misleading to the potential internal injury… (see the NFL).
Someone bumps into me at night. Hard. I fall down and hit my head. Guy leans over me as I struggle to get up.
I pull out my gun and shoot the guy point-blank in the heart, because the next hit or bump might kill me.
I guess you vote not guilty, right?
Oh, I wasn’t aware that Zimmerman was wearing a football helmet at the time. I wasn’t aware that Zimmerman actually had a concussion or other neurological brain damage despite the lack of major external injury. Cite please?
Having the burden of proof of self-defense be on the defendant is fine if you don’t mind innocent people being convicted, and if it’s never you having to choose to either use force and go to prison, or be killed or injured by your attacker.
You carry a gun, you accept the responsibility for how that gun is used. You kill someone, you’re damn straight there should be some burden to prove it was self-defense, not this ‘prove it wasn’t self defense or I walk scott-free’.
I don’t think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I do think he’s guilty of profoundly poor judgement, and someone died because of it. There are laws against that sort of thing; no different from if someone had died when he exercised poor judgement while driving.
My odds of facing that choice go waaaay down if I don’t, you know, go chasing after unarmed kids and all. Or maybe if I don’t carry a gun without having the ability to exercise proper judgement about the situations I put myself in while packing.
Down, perhaps (though it’s not been proven that Zimmerman “chased after” Martin, as opposed to Martin confronting him), but not to zero. It’s not up to you whether you will ever face a threat to your life or body, no matter how well you conduct yourself.
He was unwittingly teleported through the windshield by Martin, who was also time-travelling after gaining Jedi powers from being high on the “lean” that he made with the Skittles two hours after being shot.
He is telling the truth about needing to get out of the car to read a street sign, despite the fact that he lives in the neighborhood, spends time patrolling the neighborhood, and the neighborhood has three streets.
He chased after Martin and is lying about it.
A reasonable person who has interacted with actual human beings would put the odds of each possibility at 0, .01, and 99.99 respectively.
I don’t agree that (2) is effectively zero. My own wife doesn’t know the names of any of our cross streets. Several other people on this board have posted similar statements. I myself realized I didn’t know the name of a small cross street less than half a mile from my home after being challenged to name it during a real-life discussion of this case.
When he got out of his car to “read a street sign” (after stating on the police call that, Martin was running away, followed by the ding ding of his door opening and the sound of his thighs rubbing together in the wind, followed closedly by the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if he was following Martin, to which Zimmerman replied, “yes,” but, you know, whatever) my first question is, why didn’t he drive to the end of the street where the street signs are in the first place; my second question would be, did he really think he was going to find a street sign in someone’s back yard, and my third question would be – don’t give me that shit about he was walking over to the other street to tell them where his car wasn’t parked.
That’s why I dismiss it so readily. Can’t speak for Condescending Robot.
Because getting out the car when it’s raining to see something which isn’t there don’t make no sense.
If GZ said that he continued driving to the intersection to see the street sign, I’d find that much more believable than the assertion that he got out his car in the middle of the block to look for a street sign where none exist.
Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Martin. Then, the dispatcher asks him “Are you following him?” Zimmerman answers “Yeah”. The dispatcher says “Ok, we don’t need you to that”, and Zimmerman says “Ok”. He audibly stops running, and smacks his flashlight against something, says he doesn’t know where the kid is, then hangs up.
Sure. What’s so odd about that? Do you think a medical specialist in a particular field would be held to the same standard of care a general practitioner would be held to? The Prudent Man Rule vs Prudent Investor Rule clearly shows that the courts believe that persons may be held to different (higher) standards based on different circumstances.
You want to carry a gun, you should be held to a greater level of responsibility of when and how you use that gun.
why are you obviously going to say it? That’s not the narrative of the fight. It starts with Martin asking either “why are you following me” or “you gotta problem… well you do now”. That’s followed by either Zimmerman saying “what are you doing here” or a punch in the nose.
As it stands now, barring new evidence, Martin returns to where he and Zimmerman came from and where Zimmerman’s truck is. This would be the 2nd time he’s confronted Zimmerman at this point. I have to believe, barring new evidence, that Martin intended to confront Zimmerman. It fits his profile of street fighting and it fits Dee Dee’s description of what was happening (but not her opinion). She describes a lowering of Martin’s voice and an increase in his breathing. It sounds like he’s pumped up for a fight. If Zimmerman did indeed ask what Martin was doing there he unknowingly lit a fuse that went off in his face. It sounds like an innocuous question but it’s pretty insulting to be asked that in your own neighborhood. Now it’s too late. The fight escalates.
But here’s the question. Bricker doesn’t want to debate his position but he thinks there’s a possibility of manslaughter and you’ve voiced the same thing. That would, IMO start by leaving the truck. Martin has already shown some level of confrontation and Zimmerman was smart not to engage him. But he still wants to keep Martin in his sights so he follows him from a distance. Martin goes to the right and is out of sight by the time Zimmerman gets to the back of the houses. This is established by both parties. What then happens is IMO crucial in the idea of manslaughter. Zimmerman does NOT turn right. He stays at the top of the T. This is a strategically smart maneuver on his part. It keeps him away from Martin yet it gives him a commanding field of view of the back yards while also keeping the arriving police in sight. If you look at the area each house has a mini-privacy fence that’s perfect to hide behind. Zimmerman walks to the end of the sidewalk and turns back. this would give him a view of the street if Martin popped out from between the houses. Again, a good move on his part whether it was specifically planned or not.
What changes the dynamics of a possible manslaughter charge is Zimmerman’s decision not to follow Martin South behind the buildings.
Whilst it may be your opinion that you shouldn’t get to do that, the law in Florida says otherwise, at the very least for values of chasing the “bad guys” that don’t rise to the level of a violent felony.