(1) If you spend time and effort arguing a joke charge, you lose credibility in front of the jury, and lose the opportunity to make a coherent argument for the lesser charge.
(2) You lose some lesser offenses. For example, there is a culpable negligence law that allows for up to 1 year in prison. The prosecutor has a far better chance of showing that Zimmerman acted recklessly than that he intended to commit murder.
From what we’ve seen, this shouldn’t be terribly difficult. Zimmerman set the bar high for himself by insisting that Martin inflicted serious injuries upon his nose and his head. If there is no evidence of such injuries in police and EMT records, on top of Zimmerman delaying medical care beyond the time that we’d expect if he indeed had a broken nose, then all the prosecutor has to do is point these details out to a jury and let them reach their own conclusions. No need for her to even spell anything out for them.
No, Zimmerman only needs to show he was attacked in a manner that was life threatening. That does not equal serious external injuries when describing an attack against someone’s head.
As far as I am aware, they have all been statements from Zimmerman’s supporters. None of which is admissible at trial because it is hearsay. The only thing that Zimmerman is bound to is whatever he has told police. We don’t have many details on that at this point.
The point is, if he claims to have received injuries that are not documented by police or medical records, it casts doubt on his entire statement. Of course, the injuries are mentioned in the police report, and by some witnesses who saw Zimmerman in the days after the shooting.
Frankly, I’d be astonished if he claims in court to have any injuries that aren’t documented in medical reports.
For you, evidently not - you appear to find a few statements that don’t really fit with the evidence a complete story that makes sense to you. Other people not so much.
Not a problem.
And I just don’t see how he can show that with the evidence we know about. Not even close.
And there’s a lot more than that to point to that undermines his story. Really hardly anything supports it.
And it has to be more than that. Just having an injury is not proof that his only course of action was shooting Martin. Let’s say Martin whacked GZ in the head and scratched his scalp with a fingernail causing it to bleed. some struggling on the ground, Zimmerman pushes Martin off and stands up, showing the gun. Does he need to shoot Martin? Is that necessary at that point? What about if there’s no standing, he just pulls out the gun and Martin sees it, and grabs his arm to prevent Zimmerman pointing it at him, all the while screaming as we know he did: Help! Help!. Why does martin need to shoot him at that point?
Merely having an injury is hardly proof that killing Martin was justified.
All he has to show is evidence of being struck in the head consistent with his testimony to the police.
Where? Can you point me to a Zimmerman statement about his injuries? I haven’t seen one.
Are you anticipating that in the EMT report? Since he did not seek immediate medical attention, I am not sure what else he can present to support his claims.
I do. Can you tell me what you expect to see in Zimmerman’s testimony about his injuries?
I understand that he received some medical attention at the scene when the police arrived, but I’m not looking through the whole of this thread to find the cite. If that is the case, it will be recorded, and the prosecutor will have seen the report.
Stoid, for the 87 millionth time, no-one has to prove that the killing was justified.
I expect it will be very different than his initial claims, now that we have contradicting testimony from eyewitnesses. I suspect he got punched, but I doubt he will stick with the broken nose or head slammed on the sidewalk. I do think there probably was a struggle for the gun, which was entirely justified as Martin fought for his life.
Can you give me a link to where you’re getting “his original claims”? I haven’t seen any.
blood on his face and back of his head. It doesn’t take much of a pummeling to the head to fear threat of one’s life. for the 87 millionth time, it doesn’t require a pool of blood.
Actually no. Nothing has been proven for the purposes of coming to a verdict at this point, regardless of what you have personally analyzed.
But it does require a preponderance of the evidence. If the EMT report contradicts his claim of a bloody nose and a head wound, his attorney will not assert those claims, I guarantee you.
Police report by the policeman who was first on the scene:
“Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”
I guarantee you the EMT report will show bleeding from the nose and back of his head. There was absolutely no reason for the police officer to risk his career by lying on the official police report.
I gurantee you the EMT report will show his nose was not broken, and there was no bleeding from the back of his head.