The Zimmerman Trial

Moral of the story. Why the hell did TM hit GZ for any reason. It seems so stupid that someone lost their life over this it's like they couldn't just say "hi" to each other. GZ just wanted people to stop breaking in to houses and TM probably just wanted to go home and smoke weed and drink his drink. Both are idiots to me but neither are really HARD criminals. Even if TM didn't die it would still be a wash if they tried to get GZ with attempted murder.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
And what "FACTS" have you gotten thus far? Who can confirm those "facts", as being "fact"? FACT IS: He followed a young black boy. What happened, after that, is IRRELEVANT! Trials are just to see if and how justice should be served. If Trayvon broke into Zimmerman's house and George shot him dead, there would be no trial.

It's as though some people are convinced that if George gets found guilty, people will be unable to kill someone in self-defence anymore. These kind of incidents have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and if after a thorough investigation and possible trial, your killing is justified, you get to be called innocent of any wrongdoing. Part of a thorough investigation should involve knowing the name of the deceased before you release the potential murderer, unless circumstances are exceptional, such as they are needing hospital treatment.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Am I reading your assault law right? A person has the first amendment right to call my mother a whore, criticise my father's manhood,claim I have sex with animals, all to my face and all in front of an audience, and if I respond "Go away or you are getting knocked out!" I'm the one who will be facing a charge sheet? Don't you have "fighting words" laws in some states?

Yes, there are fighting words laws in most states. It is used to justify things like bar brawls and the like.

Most people do not know about "fighting words", however, and that is a fault on their part, because when arrested and charged, instead of using a viable defense, they get hung for assault for throwing the first punch.

In other words, if you are ignorant of the law, and your attorney also is, the judge or DA isn't going to hand you your defense.

I know it sucks, but it is the truth.

One quick example. My son had someone tailgaiting him. He was anxious, because.he was coming up on a right turn into a gas station where he wanted to stop for gas and cigarettes.

When he hit the brakes to turn, using his turn signal and braking slowly to attempt to signal the tailgaiter, the tailgaiter was not paying attention. When he finally did look up, he had to slam on the brakes and swerve.

My son turned into the gas station, followed by the tailgaiter, who then followed him into the store. A verbal argument broke out in front of the cashier with the tailgaiter accusing my son of brake-checking him. The tailgaiter threatened my sons life, so he used the phone at the counter to call police.

Police arrive, talk to the tailgaiter outside, then come inside, talk to my son, and proceed to ticket him for wreckless driving.

Son goes to court 3 times, the judge tells him he MUST have an attorney. He comes to me, we look up the law on wreckless driving in my Ga. Code book. Turns out to ticket for wreckless driving, it MUST be witnessed by a cop.

The judge should have thrown it out. It cost me one thousand bucks to walk in and spend 5 minutes with an attorney, show him my code book, and explain why it should be thrown out. He left the office, called the judge, and the charges were dismissed.

Is that fair? No, but a shining example of how ignorance of the law nearly cost my son his license for 2 years and a ten thousand dollar fine.

No one, including and especially the judge, was going to offer him a defense. I think the judge shoukd be impartial, and be there to prevent miscarriage of justice, not cater to it.

This judge, in the Zimmerman trial, is catering to it.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Anyway the gist of it was that you do not need to wait till your life is
in peril due to injuries. There is no legal definition for how bad you
need to be beaten to defend yourself. You do not have to wait till
your injuries are life threatening. The lead investigator even said
that.

Correct. The only person to judge if they felt their life was in danger, is George.

This is the rule of the self defense law. It doesn't matter how the injuries "appear", or whether or not someone "thinks they look" life threatening or not, it has zero to do with the emotion of reasonable fear that your life is in danger.

In fact, there need be NO injury at all for self defense, and the fact of injury only goes that much FURTHER in the record of self defense, especially when there is no evidence George ever threw a punch.

Also, the use of equal and greater force to prevent a crime is only a standard for police.

Civilians are not expected to be held to a standard of understanding and judgement, which law encorcement will tell you takes training, to judge equal or GREATER force. Not just equal force.

Applying that standard to George, however, he is STILL within the law, even if judged as law enforcement. He used equal or GREATER force by his judgement, when his gun was aimed for, and it was perceived as a fight for his life.

Again, the only one to make that judgement is George.

If he were law encforcement, only then would his actions be judged by Internal Affairs.

Aim for a cops gun, I dare you. You will soon understand equal or GREATER force, and the term self defense.

The standards are LOWER for civilians, NOT higher, NOT equal.

reply to post by Libertygal


What is right legally and what is right morally are two different things. Slavery was legal at one time, for example, but it was never morally right unless you had the morals of a viper. George, good catholic that he is, needs to have a good chat with this god he believes in to confirm whether Trayvon's death was exactly what he intended, or whether god might have preferred him to stay in his car, like a reasonable person would.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I never said I was a blogger did I? I don't blog. I write (short stories/novels).

You're question is convoluted and it sounds like you had a misunderstood something, but are insisting on following through. To answer your ridiculous question though.. I had no idea that people were insinuating that Martin's parents had given up the possibility of a criminal trial in exchange for money. Why do you think I would know if some person insinuated that, or why they did? They wouldn't have any control over that, but I think they (along with their attorney) did coerce Rachel into giving false information so they could settle their civil case. They didn't tell Rachel that she would eventually have to go to the stand in the criminal case (where she would be torn apart). She said herself that she never thought it would go that far.

I am sure there are some people that have taken Zimmerman's side from the start, and blindly so, but what is the relevance? There have been far more people that blindly defended Trayvon (all the way up to the president) without the facts being in. Trayvon's parents made themselves look like profiteers and Trayvon may have been an idiot as you stated, but he was also well on his way to being a seasoned thug as evidenced by perpetual drug abuse, regular assaults and fighting, having a gun he couldn't legally carry outside his home straw purchased for him, being caught with burglary tools and stolen items (which likely came from a house burglarized a few blocks from his school if you investigate for yourself). It is also very possible that he was in a disassociated state from drinking "watermelon leans" which he had 2 of the ingredients for in a bag while walking and had recently talked about using on facebook.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Libertygal

 

What is right legally and what is right morally are two different things. Slavery was legal at one time, for example, but it was never morally right unless you had the morals of a viper. George, good catholic that he is, needs to have a good chat with this god he believes in to confirm whether Trayvon's death was exactly what he intended, or whether god might have preferred him to stay in his car, like a reasonable person would.

It's a good thing he is in a court of law, and not a court of morality as is being played out by the media. He would have been lynched a long time ago.

Good thing we are a nation of law, not emotion.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Libertygal

 

What is right legally and what is right morally are two different things. Slavery was legal at one time, for example, but it was never morally right unless you had the morals of a viper. George, good catholic that he is, needs to have a good chat with this god he believes in to confirm whether Trayvon's death was exactly what he intended, or whether god might have preferred him to stay in his car, like a reasonable person would.

It's a good thing he is in a court of law, and not a court of morality as is being played out by the media. He would have been lynched a long time ago.

< Checks number of blacks lynched south of the Mason-Dixie line in the last 100 years.>
< Checks how many non-blacks have received the same treatment >

Sorry, but I think you are getting a little hysterical there.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


He has a price on his head from the new black panthers. There have been hundreds if not thousands of people threaten to kill him if he is acquitted. So no, I don't think she is being hysterical. Your little example is of course irrelevant and absurd.

Originally posted by marbles87
Moral of the story. Why the hell did TM hit GZ for any reason. It seems so stupid that someone lost their life over this it's like they couldn't just say "hi" to each other. GZ just wanted people to stop breaking in to houses and TM probably just wanted to go home and smoke weed and drink his drink. Both are idiots to me but neither are really HARD criminals. Even if TM didn't die it would still be a wash if they tried to get GZ with attempted murder.

How do you KNOW TM hit GZ, in the first place? Is it because the same guy that shot TM, said so??? What did you expect GZ to say? Did you expect him to say he initiated the fight? The other 1/2 of the equation is unable to speak, regarding this matter. Therefore, we're only getting PART of the story!

reply to post by WonderBoi


There is no 100 percent proof, but there is enough evidence to make the assumption and create enough doubt to let Zimmerman go free.

The evidence is that there is no damage to Zimmerman's knuckles or hands indicating he did not throw any punches. If he didn't throw any punches he didn't throw a first punch. Martin however DID have damage to his knuckles indicating he did throw punches and likely the first one. Also the fact that we KNOW Martin confronted Zimmerman first based on Rachel and Zimmerman's testimony. So if the prosecutions key witness says Martin confronted first then that supports Zimmerman's story.

Why it is okay to disagree with the witness today...

She was paid to testify. She never laid hands on Zimmerman, nor Trayvon.

She suited the prosecution, so she was hired. She looked at the same photos everyone else saw.

George's doctor, however, did say he needed stitches, however, because the wounds had stopped bleeding, be opted to leave them alone and observe them for healing.

To judge a closed head injury without a ct scan is difficult, but not impossible.

Closed head injuries can be diagnosed symptomatically, and that was between George and his doctor, who will testify.

For now, lets visit some types of closed head injuries that can be sustained from having your head banged on concrete, but, before we do, some basic anatomy is needed.

The brain floats in the brain case. It is not held tightly in place, but in fact, suspended in fluid.

There are small vessels that go from the brain to the membrane around the brain, the epidural sac and meninges. Along with these vessels are nerves. The brain itself has no feeling, but the nerves and membranes surrounding it do.

As people age, their brain mattet shrinks. This can begin at any age, and there is age appropriate shrinkage and above age appropriate shrinkage. The only way for this to be determined is by ct or mri.

Now that we have covered that, lets go to types of injuries that could have been sustained.

Concussion - concussions can be mild to severe, symptoms will vary depending on the severity. Some concussions only require management of symtoms, conservative treatment, and some require hospitalisation to prevent dehydration from nausea, pain management, up to craniotomy for evacuation of hematoma to prevent loss of life.

Symptoms can include "my head felt like it was going to explode"
Amnesia or memory complaints for days following the traumatic event
Fatigue
www.mayoclinic.com...=symptoms
See link for more

Coup contrecoup - this is a little known injury that occurs rather often, and happens when a sudden strike or blow to one side of the head causes the brain to hit the inside of the brain case on one side, then literally bounce off the other side of the brain case on the other side.

Coup contrecoup is more serious than a concussion, but again, treatment is largely symptomatic. The symptoms are similar to concussion, as well, though the symptoms may take longer to resolve.

Coup contrecoup is more typically referred to as a traumatic brain injury, but is still a closed head injury.




Diffuse axonal injury - remember when we discussed brain anatomy and I explained that there were small blood vesses and nerves that went from the brain to the membranes that protect the brain?

Diffuse axonal injury occurs when a sudden jarring of the brain inside the brain case happens, much like coup contrecoup, and in fact often accompanies coup contrecoup, though the two are not always together.




The injury of DIA occurs when there is a shearing of the vessels and nerves between the brain and the membrane,. Thus shearing causes small, pinpoint bleeds on the brain. DIA injuries are permanent. Severity depends on the amount of bleeds and shearing of vessels and nerves.

Now, you ask, why do you care? Why do you need to know this? Because, without having examined George in person, or seeing any radiological films, or doing a neuro exam, or knowing him before and after, there is no way the person that testified today could make any judgements about George's injuries aside from what she saw on his skin.

What was on his skin was NOT necessarily indicative of what happened inside his skull.

The only person (s) that could possibly determine that would be his doctor, and possibly his wife, who was a nursing student at the time.

reply to post by Libertygal


I have been watching Nancy Grace today. She is so rude, but she just had a well respected Dr. discussing the wounds and as soon as he started saying what she didn't want to hear she went from respectful to cutting him off. She never allows someone to get a whole point across.

I wish someone would bring up the case of Natasha Richardson. She fell on a ski slope, hit her head on SNOW, had no visible wounds, but later died of her injury which wasn't visible externally.

So if you can hit your head and leave no marks but still be injured enough to die, then hitting your head on concrete and being cut open then you are definitely in a life threatening position.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I am watching her now, and I agree with you. She makes me extremely angry when she does that.

I also agree with you about the skiing accident.

I see people die very often in my line of work that have done nothing more than bang their head on a cabinet door.

What qualifies as a life threatening head injury simply cannot be determined by looking at the back of someones' head. The defense will certainly slaughter this entire line of reasoning when they present their case.

The totality of things being, there is simply no bearing on the matter, severity, or even any injury at all is not necessary when you are in fear for your life. George stated he felt that he was in fear for his life, when someone goes for your gun, it becomes a life or death matter, regardless of whether or not you have been injured.

When people die because they hit their head on a cabinet door, it is not unfeaseable they can die from hitting it on the ground, cement, someones' fist, or snow.

reply to post by Libertygal


I agree.

Lawfully, degree of wounds do not constitute a fear of life.

Example: If someone comes through my window late at night while me and my children sleep, I am going to shoot them. If they die, they die. I will have had the natural right to preservation of life.

The intruder does not have to physically harm us.

reply to post by ButterCookie


That actually happened to a relative of mine. She was 4 at the time, and awoke to a man climbing in the window over her head. Her father shot him dead, and his body fell on top of her and her sister.

Her father was never arrested or taken to court.

Of course, because the perp and shooter were both white, no race ever entered the picture.

However, just recently, a black man broke into a womans' home in broad daylight. She retreated to an upstairs bedroom closet with her children and gun, and called her husband. He called 911, and stayed on the phone with his wife.

The man entered the bedroom, then began breaking down the closet door where she was hiding with her children. She shot and killed him, though he ran from the house with 5 gunshot wounds and died in the yard next door.

There were people that actually said she should go to jail for killing him.

What?

They claim.she didn't know what his intent was.

I do believe he was unarmed.

Does that even matter? She feared for her life, and the lives of her children.

No charges were filed, but that didn't stop the attempts at a public hanging like we see actually happening here.

Correction: he lived, but crashed his vehicle trying to flee the scene.

www.dreamindemon.com...

It was not unlawful to get out of his car, regardless of 911 operator advice, as they are not the law.

Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood as does any neighborhood watch.

Trayvon felt offended when he was approached by Zimmerman, and according to the prosecution's witness,
made a racial slur to him ("white a-- cracker").

Zimmerman asked Martin if he lived over there, and Martin responded, "Do you have a problem?"

Martin punched Zimmerman, knocking him down, and striking him multiple times. Trayvon was on the top, according to one of the prosecution's eyewitness, and congruent to the physical evidence on their bodies.

When Trayvon noticed Zimmerman's gun, he MAY have grabbed for it, causing Zimmerman to reach for it and defend his life. He shot him-Self Defense.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Libertygal

 

What is right legally and what is right morally are two different things. Slavery was legal at one time, for example, but it was never morally right unless you had the morals of a viper. George, good catholic that he is, needs to have a good chat with this god he believes in to confirm whether Trayvon's death was exactly what he intended, or whether god might have preferred him to stay in his car, like a reasonable person would.

GZ a good Christian!! Lol....that's laughable....he has no remorse at all...he said he believed it was Gods will....nothing but a wanna b cop, WHO WAS TOLD NOT TO FOLLOW.....how many of you are closely following this case??? GZ sexually molested his cousin for 10 years. This sick scum has some screws loose........shooting an innocent boy minding his own business.....him & his wifey hiding money.....GZ has crossed many lines.....TM WAS RIGHT DESCRIBING GZ AS BEING CREEPY......poor kid thought he might be molested by a nut...delve into the life of GZ more & you will be surprised by how discussing he is

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by marbles87
Moral of the story. Why the hell did TM hit GZ for any reason. It seems so stupid that someone lost their life over this it's like they couldn't just say "hi" to each other. GZ just wanted people to stop breaking in to houses and TM probably just wanted to go home and smoke weed and drink his drink. Both are idiots to me but neither are really HARD criminals. Even if TM didn't die it would still be a wash if they tried to get GZ with attempted murder.

How do you KNOW TM hit GZ, in the first place? Is it because the same guy that shot TM, said so??? What did you expect GZ to say? Did you expect him to say he initiated the fight?

The other 1/2 of the equation is unable to speak, regarding this matter. Therefore, we're only getting PART of the story!

TMs hands were clean. No abrasions......zimmerman is a lier.....

reply to post by Libertygal


Absolutely!!

This is what I'm noticing as I debate this topic with family and peers (I'm black).

Them: "That Zimmerman (racial slur) shot that poor baby in cold blood!"

Me: "Noooo...let's examine the evidence..."

Them: "Evidence?? Whatever! He murdered Trayvon cuz he was BLACK!"

Me: "Again, lets look at the evidence...."

Them: "WE DON"T CARE ABOUT ANY EVIDENCE!!" Zimmerman attacked him for NO reason!"

Me: ' But the evidence shows that Trayvon was the aggressor, physically and verbally, even seen to be on top of Trayvon by an eyewitness, and was the one who made the racial slur, according to his girlfriend."

Them: Oh....well......so what- he should stayed in his car and none of this would have happened!".

See, they try to assert that Zimmerman initiated the attack, but once that is shown to be false, then Zimmerman should have stayed in the car so that Trayvon could not have attacked him.

EXCUSES!!