George Zimmerman trial

[das_nut]

Sure, people can be injured in different ways from similar events. The fact remains that the injuries to the back of GZ's head were minor, which doesn't exactly correspond to having one's head "slammed" into concrete (with all that word conveys about great force being used), much less reasonably believing that he was in imminent danger of death.

Yes, the contusions on the back of George Zimmerman's head were minor. Presumably, he was either attacked from behind, or fell back and hit his head, or someone pushed his head into the ground probably twice, at a minimum. I'm not sure if there were any other, less visible injuries.

But I ask again, if George Zimmerman's claims was true (and a witness testified that he saw someone consistent with Trayvon Martin assaulting George Zimmerman), how many times would he have to have his head hit the concrete before he could be in reasonable certainty that he was in danger of grave bodily harm?

If this had been a schoolyard fight, would you really argue that the one kid was justified in shooting the other kid dead, based on the nature and extent of the injuries sustained?

A schoolyard fight is different circumstances, due to witnesses being around and presumably a quick response. Also, for younger children, their strength is different.

But lets say we take a 17 year old, 5'11", 160 lb former football player. He's on top of a another 17 year old teen who is shorter by a few inches, but about 50 lbs fatter. The first teen has punched the second, and managed to get on top of him, where he continues to punch him and hit his head against the ground. He's already broken the teen's nose. Would the teen on the bottom fear for his life? Would that fear be reasonable?

I don't think either teen should be carrying a gun. And in a school yard, the fight would be broken up quickly. But lets say its at night. Nobody is around. The cops are coming and the teen on the bottom knows this. If the teen on the bottom manages to get his hand around a rock or stick and clubs or stabs the teen on the top, causing a fatal injury, I'd say it was self defense.

 

[Mischief]

Yes, the contusions on the back of George Zimmerman's head were minor. Presumably, he was either attacked from behind, or fell back and hit his head, or someone pushed his head into the ground probably twice, at a minimum. I'm not sure if there were any other, less visible injuries.

But I ask again, if George Zimmerman's claims was true (and a witness testified that he saw someone consistent with Trayvon Martin assaulting George Zimmerman), how many times would he have to have his head hit the concrete before he could be in reasonable certainty that he was in danger of grave bodily harm?

And again, I would say it would depend on the force with which his head is being hit against the concrete. (I do appreciate that you've finally given up saying that GZ's head was "slammed" against the concrete.)

In this case, it looks like two minor impacts (which, frankly, look more like something one would get during the course of a scuffle on the ground, rather than someone intentionally hitting someone's head against concrete). Two minor impacts of my head against the surface on which I am lying wouldn't make me feel as though I was justified in killing someone, but maybe I'm not reasonable.

A schoolyard fight is different circumstances, due to witnesses being around and presumably a quick response. Also, for younger children, their strength is different.

But lets say we take a 17 year old, 5'11", 160 lb former football player. He's on top of a another 17 year old teen who is shorter by a few inches, but about 50 lbs fatter. The first teen has punched the second, and managed to get on top of him, where he continues to punch him and hit his head against the ground. He's already broken the teen's nose. Would the teen on the bottom fear for his life? Would that fear be reasonable?

I don't think either teen should be carrying a gun. And in a school yard, the fight would be broken up quickly. But lets say its at night. Nobody is around. The cops are coming and the teen on the bottom knows this. If the teen on the bottom manages to get his hand around a rock or stick and clubs or stabs the teen on the top, causing a fatal injury, I'd say it was self defense.

Well, you're kind of changing the parameters, aren't you? Hitting someone with a stick or even a rock is unlikely to result in death. Shooting them in the chest is. But even so, I wouldn't feel it appropriate for the kid to use a rock, stick (or knife) in what is a fist fight, whether it was my kid getting the worst of it or not.

I gather you aren't a parent, because if you were, I think your answer would probably be different.

I think that Travyon exercised poor judgment in turning to confront the guy following him (if that's what happened). But he was 17, and I have a different standard for the judgment and common sense I expect from teenagers versus the level of judgment and common sense I expect from an adult in his late twenties.

I think that GM is a guy without actual physical courage who got delusions of macho from the fact that he was carrying a gun. If he had even ordinary physical fortitude, his reaction to getting such slight injuries would not have been to pull his gun and shoot someone in the chest. And that's not even getting into the whole mess of GM seeing a young black guy (giving him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he realized he was dealing with a teenager) and assuming that he was up to so much no good that he had to be followed.

 

[das_nut]

And again, I would say it would depend on the force with which his head is being hit against the concrete. (I do appreciate that you've finally given up saying that GZ's head was "slammed" against the concrete.)

In this case, it looks like two minor impacts (which, frankly, look more like something one would get during the course of a scuffle on the ground, rather than someone intentionally hitting someone's head against concrete). Two minor impacts of my head against the surface on which I am lying wouldn't make me feel as though I was justified in killing someone, but maybe I'm not reasonable.

So when you fell, and cracked your skull, how many lacerations did you have?

Well, you're kind of changing the parameters, aren't you? Hitting someone with a stick or even a rock is unlikely to result in death. Shooting them in the chest is. But even so, I wouldn't feel it appropriate for the kid to use a rock, stick (or knife) in what is a fist fight, whether it was my kid getting the worst of it or not.

This isn't an action movie. This is real life. Clubbing someone with a rock or stabbing them with a stick doesn't necessarily result in a trivial injury.

I gather you aren't a parent, because if you were, I think your answer would probably be different.

No, I'm not a parent. And I'm against "harmless" (in your opinion) school yard fights.

I think that Travyon exercised poor judgment in turning to confront the guy following him (if that's what happened). But he was 17, and I have a different standard for the judgment and common sense I expect from teenagers versus the level of judgment and common sense I expect from an adult in his late twenties.

Trayvon isn't on trial here.

I think that GM is a guy without actual physical courage who got delusions of macho from the fact that he was carrying a gun. If he had even ordinary physical fortitude, his reaction to getting such slight injuries would not have been to pull his gun and shoot someone in the chest. And that's not even getting into the whole mess of GM seeing a young black guy (giving him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he realized he was dealing with a teenager) and assuming that he was up to so much no good that he had to be followed.

Once again, I have to point out, this isn't an action movie. The human body is fragile.

By the way, could you please answer my question - how many times do you have to have your head hit against the ground before you can consider your life is in danger?

 

[Mischief]

So when you fell, and cracked your skull, how many lacerations did you have?

I didn't have any laceration, just a large (about 5 inches in diameter) swelling. It was a smooth concrete floor, with nothing to catch and cut the skin.

This isn't an action movie. This is real life. Clubbing someone with a rock or stabbing them with a stick doesn't necessarily result in a trivial injury.

Did I say that it would always result in a trivial injury? I don't think I did. Perhaps the fact that I said that I wouldn't approve of my kid defending himself or herself in that manner during a fist fight might give a clue that I don't think that such an action can't cause significant harm or even death.

I was making the point that neither such an action is as likely to kill someone as shooting them in the chest is. Are you actually going to argue that?!

No, I'm not a parent. And I'm against "harmless" (in your opinion) school yard fights.

I'm against them too, but not to the extent of believing that engaging in them justifies being shot.

Trayvon isn't on trial here.

You could have fooled me; you're the one arguing that it was perfectly reasonable to first follow him around and then shoot him in the chest.

Once again, I have to point out, this isn't an action movie. The human body is fragile.

Yup. It took just one very small piece of metal to end a 17 year old's life.

By the way, could you please answer my question - how many times do you have to have your head hit against the ground before you can consider your life is in danger?

I've answered this several times, but I'll answer it once more: it depends on the force with which it's being done. I've gotten worse bumps and abrasions on my head than GM had just from walking into a low hanging tree branch repeatedly, and I have never felt my life was in danger, nor have I shot the tree.

IMO, GM will spend the rest of his life living in fear but not in remorse. That fear will, I hope, significantly affect the quality of his life, and that's fitting punishment for setting in motion the events which resulted in the death of a kid who should have had the opportunity to live his life. Unfortunately, it won't help Trayvon's parents and other loved ones. And it won't alter the perceptions that the lives of black people, and especially young black males, just really don't count for much, and that it's O.K. to use deadly force in response to non-deadly force.

And with that, I'm out because I've said all I have to say on this subject.

 

[das_nut]

I didn't have any laceration, just a large (about 5 inches in diameter) swelling. It was a smooth concrete floor, with nothing to catch and cut the skin.

So is it possible that, on a sidewalk, Zimmerman's head could have been pounded against it multiple times, and some or most of those times, there wouldn't be visible lacerations?

Did I say that it would always result in a trivial injury? I don't think I did. Perhaps the fact that I said that I wouldn't approve of my kid defending himself or herself in that manner during a fist fight might give a clue that I don't think that such an action can't cause significant harm or even death.

Are we talking about a fist fight now? I'm not sure how that is relevant to the Zimmerman trial.

I was making the point that neither such an action is as likely to kill someone as shooting them in the chest is. Are you actually going to argue that?!

Shooting someone tends to be more fatal. But clubbing someone with a rock or stabbing them with a sharp stick isn't necessarily non-fatal.

I'm against them too, but not to the extent of believing that engaging in them justifies being shot.

I think in a playground situation, where there are authority figures around, and neither side is likely to be trying to kill each other, the risk is very different.

You could have fooled me; you're the one arguing that it was perfectly reasonable to first follow him around and then shoot him in the chest.

I'm arguing that it isn't illegal to follow him around.

According to George Zimmerman, he had broke off pursuit at the time, having gone to the next street over to find the address. He ended the call to the non-emergency number and was on his way back to his vehicle when Trayvon Martin appeared, said "What the f--- is your problem, homey?" When George Zimmerman replied he didn't have a problem, Trayvon Martin told him he had a problem now, and punched him in the nose, causing him to fall to the ground. Trayvon Martin got on top of him and started punching him. Then he put his hand over George Zimmerman's nose and told him "You're going to die tonight". That's when Zimmerman managed to get the gun out and shoot him.

Now, in those circumstances, am I arguing that it is reasonable to shoot Martin in the chest? Yes.

How much of those circumstances do I believe? I think the Zimmerman timeline doesn't entirely support his testimony. He may have gone slow or continued to look for Martin. And, of course, I mentioned the Martin timeline is completely shot to hell - he should have been long gone.

But it's not illegal for either of them to have been there.

What happened next? I'm not sure. The injuries to Zimmerman makes me think he did not expect a fight. We heard testimony that Martin called Zimmerman a "crazy-*** cracker". We have conflicting reports about who the screaming was from. I think it's more likely than not to be Zimmerman, but I can see it going either way. A witness describes a person consistent with Martin's description as being on top, doing a MMA "ground and pound" to the person below. Zimmerman passed a polygraph test, and when a law enforcement officer (falsely) claimed that the entire fight had been recorded, Zimmerman seemed relieved. We have testimony saying his nose was broken. The gunshot wound is consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman.

Maybe Zimmerman is a criminal mastermind. Maybe he called the cops, knowing they were arriving, then approached Martin, started a fight, allowed himself to get beaten up to make it look like self-defense, all the time while screaming, then shot Martin. Maybe he then coldly lied to everyone about all the events, outbluffed the cops about the fight being recorded, and his psychopathic nature allowed him to pass the polygraph.

But I doubt it.

I've answered this several times, but I'll answer it once more: it depends on the force with which it's being done. I've gotten worse bumps and abrasions on my head than GM had just from walking into a low hanging tree branch repeatedly, and I have never felt my life was in danger, nor have I shot the tree.

Are you trying to claim that similar events result in similar injuries? Or are you trying to claim that walking into a tree is the same as being attacked by a person?

IMO, GM will spend the rest of his life living in fear but not in remorse. That fear will, I hope, significantly affect the quality of his life, and that's fitting punishment for setting in motion the events which resulted in the death of a kid who should have had the opportunity to live his life.

So you support extra judicial punishment by the population at large? Where people can be judge and jury, decide who is guilty and who should be punished?

How are you different than what you accuse Zimmerman of being?

Unfortunately, it won't help Trayvon's parents and other loved ones. And it won't alter the perceptions that the lives of black people, and especially young black males, just really don't count for much, and that it's O.K. to use deadly force in response to non-deadly force.

If you were there and you knew exactly how much force Martin was using, you should have gone to the prosecutor's office.

And with that, I'm out because I've said all I have to say on this subject.

No more stories about getting your head bumped by a tree and you weren't in fear of your life?

 

[Mischief]

What's going on now is petty oneupsmanship squabbling, and I'm not going to engage in that any further, since it's demeaning to the subject, which is the untimely and unnecessary death of a 17 year old kid.

 

[ledboots]

These are police photos of zimmerman's injuries the night is the shooting.

 

[Second Summer]

I hadn't paid much attention to this this case until recently when it was discussed here on VV. As there is a lot of conflicting and biased information out there, I decided to have a look on Wikipedia. Their article seems pretty extensive - well worth a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman_trial

 

[SuicideBlonde]

I see a lot about boycott Fl because of the ruling. I do not think people can completely boycott products from FL and if they do I am worried about the jobs fro the lack of money.

 

[ledboots]

Sorry for being so un-hip, but I don't get how the picture ties in to the caption. Is the guy in the picture some type of TV villain?

It is kind of a sick joke implying that since zimmerman went free, Dexter would be a good guy to kill him.

 

[ledboots]

I see a lot about boycott Fl because of the ruling. I do not think people can completely boycott products from FL and if they do I am worried about the jobs fro the lack of money.

Tourism has been up the past couple of years, and our other major thing is exported fruit, and I doubt anyone is going to boycott orange juice. I think Florida will be fine.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Zimmerman is guilty as ****. Thats all there is to say.

 

[das_nut]

Tourism has been up the past couple of years, and our other major thing is exported fruit, and I doubt anyone is going to boycott orange juice. I think Florida will be fine.

Watch out for Bugs Bunny:

 

[Wolfie]

What's going on now is petty oneupsmanship squabbling, and I'm not going to engage in that any further, since it's demeaning to the subject, which is the untimely and unnecessary death of a 17 year old kid.

People are acting like GZ killed an 8-year-old by calling Martin a "boy" or "kid". I didn't follow the trial so don't really know whose story to believe. I think both were probably at fault. Most 17-year-old guys I know are adult size. He had a right to defend himself against this "kid" if it really happened as he said it did. Not that I am saying he's telling the truth.

Casey Anthony killed a kid. GZ killed a young man with considerably more strength than a kid.

I for one won't be boycotting any FL products. I like my OJ from FL, thanks, not from China.

 

[das_nut]

Zimmerman is guilty as ****. Thats all there is to say.

You should have been a witness for the prosecution. They needed someone who could prove that Zimmerman was guilty.

 

[das_nut]

One of the jurors already has a book deal in the works.

 

[Envy]

I don't think you can have a fair judgment on this based solely on what you read in the news.

Will the official documents be made public?

 

[das_nut]

I don't think you can have a fair judgment on this based solely on what you read in the news.

Will the official documents be made public?

The court case was streamed live, and the transcript is probably online some place.

I caught a fair chunk of the trial. The one thing I noticed was that the reporting on the trial seemed rather biased towards Zimmerman's guilt, while in the trial itself, the prosecution was making some big mistakes. But hey, I realize that the news exists to sell viewers to advertisers, and sometimes making a good story gets in the way of accurately reporting what happened.

 

[cornsail]

To this extent we agree.

However, I disagree that any unarmed scuffle reasonably gives rise to anticipation that one is in danger of being killed. If one person is considerably bigger and stronger than the other, the smaller, weaker person could reasonably be in fear of his/her life. The same thing if one person is considerably more skilled in hand to hand combat.

That's where the extent of GZ's injuries is significant. GZ wasn't overmatched in terms of physical size and strength, and there's nothing about those very minor injuries that would support that TM had some significant advantage in terms of skill, nor that GZ had a reasonable anticipation of imminent death at the hands of TM.

This is not a situation where someone is attacked by an intruder, or someone unexpectedly jumps out at someone in the dark, where the victim would have every reason to believe that the other has evil intent. This was a situation where GZ was following someone in the dark, a situation where a reasonable person could anticipate that the person he is following might well assume evil intent on the stalker's part and take proactive steps to prevent an attack on himself.

Mischief, can you respond to the part in post #72 about your characterization that I believe everything GZ says and completely disregard what normal people would do? I still think this was unfair and inaccurate. I don't think I've posted anything about believing GZ on any point (let alone "everything") and I don't think I've posted anything indicating that I disregard what normal people would do. I'd appreciate it if you could at least give me an example of a quote of mine that has lead you to these conclusions. I think it's only fair that if one makes an unflattering claim about another poster that they should at least be able to explain what they are basing it on. Following that, I'd be happy to continue discussion of the case with you.

 

[beancounter]

Given the available evidence, the jury's verdict was correct. However....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GZ is a known liar. (e.g. Bail and FOX).

This is the elephant in the room that two of you are choosing to ignore.

Why is this significant? Because a liars version of events can't be relied upon.
If he's willing to lie about his assets, maybe he's willing to lie about key elements of the incident? Elements that could have changed the verdict...
Remember, he's the only person alive who knows the full story.

Ask yourself. IRL, if you know someone with a propensity to lie, do you trust what they say?

Then why are you so willing to trust GZ's version of events?