Directly from the Orlando news site. I’ve read about that type of skin injury to the knuckles many, many times in other cases. Heck, my own knuckles were like that after schoolyard fights I had in junior high school. They were never as bad as this fight because someone always pulled us apart before anyone got seriously hurt.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/
http://www.forensic-medecine.info/marks-of-violence.html
In forensics there are four types of gunshot wound: Contact wound - The muzzle of the gun was applied to the skin at the time of shooting, Close Range - The muzzle of the gun was 6-8 inches away from the skin at shooting, Intermediate Range - The gun was 8 inches to 3.5 feet away, and Distant - The gun was over 3.4 feet away at the time of shooting.
Actually, broken skin on left ring finger per the link in my last post.
Right as to the actual injuries in Andrson, but I quoted what Owen found as important from Anderson. In other words, the Florida decision, Owen, laid out Florida’s approval of the concept that great bodily harm can be found even when the injury inflicted is non-permanent, and used only the five blows with a fist example from Anderson. Notably, they did NOT quote the more extensive injury language from Anderson. If they had, they would have been endorsing the inference that more serious injury was required. And they followed the “fists” language with the other quote from another state’s case about how non-lasting the injuries needed to be.
And, finally, remember here that Zimmerman does not have to show he got an injury like that – only that he thought he was in danger of getting such an injury.
And Zimmerman is not, as anyone who watched the video can tell, anywhere near 200 pounds. He was, however, six inches shorter than Martin.
The two things don’t match.
You said bruises on his knuckles. The article you linked to says broken skin.
another article, this one is a little more specific. But it’s in accord with the other article.
It also doesn’t mention the bruised knuckles.
[INDENT]“The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger** below the knuckle**.”[/INDENT]
I suspect that M’s knuckles may have bruised. But I haven’t found confirmation that it happened yet.
Sweet.
Thank you very much.
I didn’t see this link.
I agree. If the Race-Grievance Industrial Complex weren’t so heavily invested in the case, it would probably have long been forgotten by now.
I wouldn’t go that far. I believe based on what I’ve seen that it’d be very difficult to convict Zimmerman of anything, let alone 2nd Degree Murder. But I don’t think it’s a clear cut case of self defense. The injuries I believe help the self defense claim, but depending on when those injuries happened Martin could have been the one inflicted and Zimmerman could have been committing a crime.
I don’t know. Did Zimmerman claim Martin just “went” for the gun, or that he actually had touched the gun and Zimmerman was able to get control of it? It’d be interesting to know if Martin’s fingerprints are on Zimmerman’s gun anywhere.
I think Zimmerman’s lawyer will try to use SYG because it would allow a judge to dismiss the case and protect Zimmerman from any civil liability, but I also agree that if Zimmerman’s narrative is true (a huge if) it would probably qualify as normal self defense at the time of the shooting.
I don’t think it’s entirely open and shut. The problem to me is I don’t think there is a lot of unambiguous information. That’s probably true of every trial, but what is of particular note here as I have said all along is I don’t see how you can convince beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty. You can instill some degree of doubt in all of Zimmerman’s claims, but I don’t see how any of them can be dismissed out of hand, and I don’t see how you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s account is untrue.
Unless there is a “smoking gun” that would allow the prosecutor to conclusively disprove Zimmerman’s self defense claim I do feel this is a difficult if not impossible to win case for the prosecution. If I was Zimmerman I would probably want a bench trial to remove any chance of conviction, depending on the jury pool you could get a lot of people with pre-conceptions in the jury who would be able to bully the rest of the jury into going along with a conviction. This is a perfect case for a bench trial I would think.
That is not how the self defense hearing works. GZ must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in reasonable fear for his life. The burden of proof is on GZ, not the prosecutor. The judge can rule against him with no evidence presented by the prosecution.
Martin Hyde was not talking about the SYG hearing. He was talking about the trial - if it gets there.
I agree, but I would go a bit further than that:
At this point, the case against Zimmerman appears to be extremely weak.
The main evidence against him appears to be (1) a grainy videotape which appears to show him uninjured if you don’t look at the tape carefully; (2) the statement of Martin’s mother identifying Martin as screaming for help in the moments leading up to the shooting; (3) Zimmerman’s past scrape with the law; and (4) the difference in sizes between the two men.
None of this evidence is particularly compelling, or even that strong. Even when you put it all together.
I suppose it’s possible that there is some important additional evidence against him, but it seems likely that such evidence would have been mentioned in the charging affidavit.
Exactly. At this point, the only way someone can still think the evidence is “ambiguous” is if they have a desperate need to see it that way.
At this point, the only intellectually honest thing the prosecutors could do would be to drop the charges.
Here’s an interesting point: I see a lot of people saying “well, yes, this evidence does help Zimmerman, but the prosecution knew those facts and it still went for 2nd degree murder, so they must have something up their sleeve”.
But that’s wrong. As we saw at the bond hearing, the prosecution didn’t have Zimmerman’s doctor’s records at the time they charged him. The investigator on the stand at the bond hearing had no idea that Zimmerman went to the doctor the day after the incident, had no idea that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, and O’Mara offered to provide the documentation to the prosecution at the time.
Correct, I was talking about the trial itself, not the SYG hearing.
A lot of people seem to think that since they are convinced that it’s an open and shut case, this means that the jury will see it that way too. But many of these people probably saw the OJ case as open and shut too, and the jury acquited. And, like the OJ case, this case has also seized people’s passions.
As you can see from these threads and elsewhere, many people are predisposed to believe GJ is guilty and will twist any and all evidence in accordance with that. So jury selection is key. If the prosecution can stack the deck with people predisposed to find GZ guilty (i.e. African-Americans and liberals) then GZ will probably be found guilty regardless of any evidence. If they get a cross-section of the population, then he walks.
[I see that MH has already alluded to this issue.]
A terrible thought I know, but did Prosecutor Corey even look at the evidence when she charged Zimmerman?
Certainly not at the medical evidence about Zimmerman’s injuries that was leaked yesterday.
Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation when he got out of his car with his gun to chase down a “fucking punk” one of those “assholes [who] always get away.” Well wouldn’t you know it, he got what he was looking for. And when he started to get his ass kicked in that confrontation, he decided to go full-pussy and end it by shooting the kid he went after.
Of course, Florida’s retarded gun-coddling laws apparently make that completely legal, so it’s probably correct that he’ll get off.
And one more victory for the NRA can be notched. Maybe they can celebrate it on Treyvon Martin’s birthday each year just to really drive the point home.
Absolutely correct.
Um… I don’t think that’s true.
I mean, it’s true in the abstract. The judge can, in general, find that a particular set of proof does not rise to the requisite level.
But in this case, I don’t see how a judge could do that. If the defense presented Zimmerman’s testimony, corroborated with the doctor’s report and the autopsy report, I don’t see how the state could get away with presenting no evidence.
Certainly I’d be stunned to see it tried.
Have you seen the State’s evidence against Zimmerman?