It looks like you just solved the case and proved Zimmerman’s guilt to everyone. When do you plan to contact Angela Corey so she can go through the motions of having Zimmerman’s sentencing hearing begin?
Your link doesn’t work for me. But if the attorney made such a claim. it’s ridiculous because Zimmerman did in fact receive medical treatment by EMTs. Is the claim that Zimmerman explicitly asked to be transferred to the hospital but either the EMTs or the police refused?
I think it’s because it’s becoming clear that there was probable cause, even under the stringent requirements of SYG. If a prosecutor said there wasn’t, especially now that we’re over a month into the case, then that makes SOMEONE look bad. It makes the prosecutor’s office look like it didn’t really examine the evidence (or lack thereof) or the police department look bad for not doing a good investigation. Or both.
I’m anticipating a bombshell soon.
I’m pretty sure he’s not talking about EMT care, but rather hospital care. You know, for that broken nose and busted up head.
I don’t know why my link isn’t working for you. Google abc, serino, blocked the charge. It should the first link that comes up. The thing about medical care is 3rd paragraph in.
Both these audio experts are on Lawrence O’Donell MSNBC right now
Here’s a question for the lawyers:
If Zimmerman was just being brought in for questioning and not being arrested, could the police really deny him the opportunity to seek additional medical attention?
If someone is not being officially detained and can walk off on his own volition at any time, then Zimmerman would have been free to go to the hospital, correct?
Maybe the police asked if he could stay with them a little while longer so they could finish their questioning–which would indicate something about how they perceived his medical condition–but I’m assuming they could not have forced him to stay. Is this a correct assumption?
I did a GQ thread with similar questions (not including the hospital request) a few days ago, The short answer is that there is an intermediate state between freedom and arrest called “detention”, when you are not free to leave and you are not under arrest. It seems very unlikely to me that the police would have denied a request for a visit to the ER in circumstances like this, but that’s just my own opinion.
Also, could the need to preserve evidence, to take pictures of the injuries, have any bearing? He was “cleared” by the EMTs and theoretically not in need of emergency attention.
No such assumption. I don’t know exactly how they arrived at the same point, but I thought it was pretty well established from the girlfriends statement that Martin stopped and turned to confront him and ask “why are you following me?”
As to the bruising, I am no expert, all I know is that for myself bruising doesn’t generally show until an hour or more after. Just some localized swelling and redness initially, but I have no idea what happens with any of these processes once circulation stops. On the other hand, grabbing someone by a shirt collar, the hood of a hoody, or a sleeve is unlikely to cause bruising.
Why is this trouble?
From the beginning I have been pretty certain Zimmerman wouldn’t be convicted. Heck I even pointed out where the evidence just wasn’t conclusive. However, not being convicted does not = innocent. While the court may find it exceedingly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I myself am reasonably convinced that Zimmerman is guilty.
What leads you to believe Zimmerman thought Martin was a thug? From his 911 statements it is pretty clear he thinks Martin is a teen, suspicious, on drugs, staring, and either a punk or a coon (depending upon which interpretation of the garbled you subscribe to). That sounds to me like Zimmerman doesn’t think too much of him at all.
Yes. I don’t see Zimmerman as the calm collected Rhodes Scholar type. From his previous incidents I think it is evident that he is probably a bit of a hot head reactionary.
Of all the posts by ywtfin this thread, you pick this one to say that?
Is that what you think?
OK, lay it out for me, in a bulleted list. What are the elements that the police knew that night that created probable cause to believe the force used by Zimmerman was unlawful?
In blackjack, typically the dealer doesn’t win ties either. A tie is a “push,” with the bet remaining uncollected, neither the player nor the house winning.
You might find yourself disagreeing with Bricker in the realm of criminal law, but never take him on when the subject is games of chance.
He says he’s up to no good and is coming at him with something in his hand, and that his hand is in his waistband. All this tells me is that he sees Martin as a potential threat. A weirdo, thief, and thug all in one. Just like many folks in America (and on this board) see him.
Which is exactly why it’s unreasonable to believe that he didn’t pull his weapon out.
Look, your belief is that he went after Martin to restrain him. He was that dadgum determined to get him that he went rooting after him in someone’s backyard. You also think he was so wedded to the notion of not letting him get away that he shot him the moment he was almost free from his grasp. Correct? The idea of Martin running off upset him that much that he instinctively shot the kid rather than face that prospect.
And yet, even though you think he was willing to shoot the kid dead to keep him from running off, for some reason you think he was unwilling to brandish his gun to keep him from running off. I’m truly fascinated that you’re able to reconcile both of these ideas, but I struggle with it. Zimmerman strikes me as an all-or-nothing kind of dude. Anyone who goes chasing after a suspicious character is mentally going into it expecting to use the gun on their hip. Otherwise, they’d probably not be chasing after a suspicious character. Guns give people a false sense of power and fearlessness, as steronz intimated.
Anyone so trigger-happy as to shoot someone when they’re trying to run away is also liable to whip their gun out at the first sign of resistance. In my non-expert opinion, both of these traits are symptoms of the same underlying condition: fear of losing control.
Ywtf, since you believe it is OK to take evidence of Zimmerman’s character into account when coming up with your narrative, why don’t you think it’s OK to take evidence of Martin’s character into account?
Bricker, if what monstro is saying is wrong, please explain why the SA seems rather adamant that the cops could have arrested Zimmerman if they had wanted to.
And if probable cause was such a stretch in your view, I guess you think the homicide detective was wrong when he recommended an arrest? Rather than getting into it with monstro, address these matters, please.
BTW, here’s a link to the article I mentioned earlier, and here’s the relevant passage from Zimmerman’s lawyer.
bolding mine
I’ve already explained why I think there may be serious consequences to an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I hope that I’m wrong.
I can’t speak for you with the face, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to take Martin’s character into account. The problem is, the stuff that’s been dug up on Martin fails to impress me in any way, other than further convincing me that he was a normal teenager. You see, I was 17 once, and I smoked weed, I committed petty theft to impress my friends, and I acted tough on the internet. I was once “detained” by police for trespassing on a golf course. I wasn’t violent, though. I was a nerdy kid on the chess team. And I didn’t deserve to get shot.
Other people are presenting this character evidence as a sign that Martin was a violent thug, and I think that’s just laughable. The character evidence against Zimmerman is compelling; the character evidence against Martin is just pathetic, so far.