Skip to main content

DNA results and Autopsy results would have to "prove" that Trayvon Martin actually "caused" Zimmerman's injuries in order for for anyone, including a jury, to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense when he killed an unarmed Trayvon Martin.  However, the DNA results and the Autopsy results do not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin "caused" injuries to his face or head.  Meaning, DNA results and the Autopsy suggest Trayvon Martin is not the "cause" of Zimmerman's injuries. So Zimmerman's alleged self defense claim might not fly with the jury since none of the forensic results suggest Trayvon Martin touched Zimmerman in any way, shape or form.

The Jury will see the DNA report shows that none of Zimmerman's DNA was under Martin's fingernails.  
George Zimmerman was damn near bald on the night he followed, search for, then found and killed Trayvon Martin.  In order for Trayvon Martin to grab Zimmerman's bald head tight enough to slam his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times, some of Zimmerman's DNA would have gotten underneath Trayvon Martin's fingernails.

The DNA results show none of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails:

Exhibit ME2:  Fingernail scrapings represented as being from Trayvon Benjamin Martin
                   “gave chemical indications for the presence of blood”

ME 2A Right hand: “No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin (ME-3) were
                          found on Exhibit ME-2A”

ME 2B Left hand:  “No DNA results were obtained from Exhibit ME-2B

The Jury will see the DNA report shows that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on the cuffs/sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
George Zimmerman told detectives (time 34:46 in video after the orange squiggle) that he had "blood all over [his] face and eyes."  We know from pictures officer's took of Zimmerman moments after he killed Trayvon that Zimmerman did not really have blood covering his eyes.  That said, if Trayvon had been punching Zimmerman in the nose 25 to 30 times, as Zimmerman claims, then some of Zimmerman's blood would be all over the cuff/sleeve of Trayvon Martins hoodie.  
Exhibit ME 12 Hoodie represented as being from Trayvon Martin

Stain A:
     Partial DNA profile consistent with originating from a male individual and matches the DNA profile from Trayvon Benjamin Martin (ME-3).”

Stain B: (cuff/sleeve regions of both arms)
     Failed to give chemical indications for the presence of blood

Right cuff/lower sleeve:
    No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin were obtained from right cuff/lower sleeve

Left cuff/lower sleeve:
    No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin were obtained from left cuff/lower sleeve

ME 12 (stain B and general rubbing from cuff/sleeve regions of both arms)
    Failed to give chemical indications for the presence of blood

Stain C:
     No DNA results were obtained.

The Jury will see the DNA report that states that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on the right cuff/sleeve of Trayvon's long sleeve shirt and no determination could be made if Zimmerman's DNA was present on the left cuff/sleeve Trayvon wore underneath his hoodie because the sample size was too small to yield sufficient results.
ME 8  Shirt represented as being from Trayvon Martin

Right cuff/lower sleeve:
     Failed to give chemical indications for the presence of blood. No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin (ME-3) were obtained from Exhibit ME-8 right cuff/lower sleeve

Left cuff/lower sleeve:
     The mixed DNA profile obtained from Exhibit ME-8 left cuff/lower sleeve demonstrated the presence of at least two individuals.  Assuming Trayvon Benjamin Martin (ME-3) is a contributor to the mixture, foreign DNA results were obtained.  Due to the limited nature of these results, this data is insufficient for inclusion purposes.

      No determination can be made regarding the possible contribution of George Michael Zimmerman (JR-2) to the mixed DNA profile obtained from Exhibit ME-8 left cuff/lower sleeve.”

The Jury will see Trayvon Martin's Autopsy Report that describes, in intricate detail, the physical appearance of Trayvon Martin as he appeared after Zimmerman killed him.  The Jury will see that the Autopsy report shows Trayvon had "a 1/4" x 1/8" small abrasion on the left fourth finger."  The Jury will also see that the Autopsy does not mention any: blood, dirt, defensive wounds or offensive wounds on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs -- which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose 25-30 times, covered his nose and mouth while at the same slamming his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times.

The Jury will see Police pictures of George Zimmerman's hands approximately 45 minutes after he killed Trayvon which do not show any defensive wounds on his, dirt or blood on Zimmerman's: knuckles, palms, wrists, thumbs or fingers or fingernails.

The Jury will also see police pictures of the back-side of Zimmerman which does not show any: blood, dirt, mud, or grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's jacket or blue jeans.

In the video below the orange squiggle, at time 33:31, Zimmerman's admitted to Detectives that he pinned Trayvon Martin "face down" in the muddy, wet grass, in an effort to "restrain" the unarmed teenager he just killed.

ZIMMERMAN: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands, so I thought he had a weapon, so I grabbed his hands and pushed them away from his body, and I said, "STOP! Don't move." He was saying something like "ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing" and I said, "STOP, don't move" and then somebody came and had a flashlight and I thought was a cop and I said - oh and I still had my gun in my hand as I was holding his hands apart and I said are you a cop he said "no" but I'll call them.  I said, "I don't need you to do that I need you to help me restrain this guy."
Zimmerman admission that he pinned Trayvon Martin face down, holding Trayvon's arms out away from his body could explain: Photographs that show the front-side of Trayvon Martin's pants and hoodie have: dirt, mud, and grass stains on them.

There is no denying that the EMS Report states Zimmerman had "minor bleeding" from wounds.  Officer Wagner took pictures with his cell phone before EMS cleaned Zimmerman with Peroxide that show: the very tip of Zimmerman's nose had some blood that dripped down in a narrow band onto his mustache (but no bleeding from nostrils).  There is also a picture Wagner took before EMS cleaned Zimmerman that shows Zimmerman with "minor bleeding" (no smeared blood plus blood flowing to the front of Zimmerman's chin) on the back of his head.

That said, the DNA Report and Autopsy Report suggests that Trayvon Martin did not cause any of the injuries to Zimmerman.  How did Zimmerman get his injuries?  Who knows, but the DNA evidence and Autopsy report suggests Zimmerman did not get his injuries from the hands of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman admitted to Detectives that when he found Trayvon Martin he immediately took his own Zimmerman took his own right hand and tapped his right front pants pocket and his right back pocket (which was just inches away from his firearm) and said he "went to go for my phone" and then admitted that his phone was not even in his pants.  The other day in my Diary I wrote he put his hand in his right-side jacket pocket and that is not correct.
I wanted to make that correction here for anyone who may have read my Diary from yesterday.


In this video, at time 30:46, Zimmerman illustrates, through hand motion and words, that while standing in front of Trayvon, Zimmerman took his own right hand and tapped his right front pants pocket and his right back pocket (which was just inches away from his firearm) and said he "went to go for my phone" and then admitted that his phone was not even in his pants pocket.

At time 38:38 in the video, Zimmerman explains that Trayvon Martin did not pin Zimmerman's arms down and that Zimmerman's arms were free to "defend" himself.

At time 39:53 he admitted he wanted to "maintain close proximity to" Trayvon so he "could tell police" where Martin was. (Nothing about looking for the name of the street he lived on or an address to any random house one block away from where his car was parked.)

I think at this point it is important to remember that while Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 he did not think Travyon was "gone" from the area.  In fact, from 911 we know Zimmerman thought Trayvon was still in the area and was hiding from Zimmerman.

DISPATCH: What's your apartment number?

ZIMMERMAN: It's a home, it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is


At time 41:43 Zimmerman gives an illustration showing how he used both his hands and arms (covering his face) to "defend " himself against Trayvon Martin's punches.  Zimmerman also describes how he grabs Trayvon's wrist with his left hand, pinches Trayvon's other hand down with his arm pit, grabs his gun and "aims" his gun at Trayvon with precision enough not to "hit his own left hand" with the hollow point bullet that is about to race through Trayvon Martin's heart.

DETECTIVE: Ok, where were his hands when you went to get the weapon.
ZIMMERMAN: One hand was going toward the gun and ah, he took it off my mouth.  I took his hand, ah, he was suffocating me so I was trying to get his hands off my face.  So when I felt his hands, ah, he let go of my mouth, so I wasn't trying to do anything again with my right hand so I grabbed my gun and, ah, I don't know if he did it at the same time or what the case was but I got to it first.

DETECTIVE: How did you come to fire upon him in that position cuz you're laying down on your back and did you just bring it out of the holster.  Did you just fired it from, almost like from the hip.

ZIMMERMAN: 43:09 [GZ fully extends right arm holding an imaginary gun and at the same time, GZ uses left hand to show he was holding Martin] I think I made sure that it wasn't -- cuz my hand in the way -- I made sure it was past my hand was out of the way.  Cuz his hand was still on my face. So I made sure.  He was like putting all his weight on my nose and my mouth trying to suffocate me.  So he was like creating a crevice with his body and then he like -- when he slid to go for my gun -- that's when it clicked that I had my gun.  

DETECTIVE: You went out like this [illustrates holding an imaginary gun by his hip]

ZIMMERMAN: 44:14 [GZ fully extends right arm holding an imaginary gun I think I went and at the same time, GZ uses left hand to show holding Martin] I think I went out far enough where I could make sure that it [the gun] was past my other hand. [GZ keeps right arm extended] and in his general area.

DETECTIVE: There's not really a lot of distance between you and him, so you can't really extend you arm -- you don't have any play

ZIMMERMAN: [Zimmerman fully extends his right arm again holding imaginary gun] I was on him -- I knew I was on him. Correct.

While Zimmerman admits he knew he shot Trayvon in the above quote, earlier in the Video (34:03) Zimmerman claimed he had no idea he actually "shot" Trayvon so he pinned Trayvon face down, pushed his arms apart and yelled, "Don't Move" then told an "onlooker" to "help me restrain this guy."

Afer all that Zimmerman claims he went through, take a close look at pictures of Zimmerman's hands taken about 45 minutes after he killed Trayvon.
  photo zimmermanhandsclean_zpsa4d82246.jpg
(George Zimmerman's hands about 45 minutes after he killed Trayvon Martin look pristine)

Zimmerman's left hand:
 photo 353eb17b-78e1-48d8-b281-b8418fa58ed4_zps280a0627.jpg

These pictures of Zimmerman's hands were taken about 45 minutes after he killed Trayvon show there no defensive wounds on his hands.  There are no defensive marks on his left hand where he grabbed Trayvon's wrist tight enough to immobilize it as he grabbed his gun and aimed it with precision so as not to hit his own left hand. There isn't even any dirt under his fingernails.  Zimmerman's hands look almost pristine.

Zimmerman claims he was using both his arms to defend himself against Trayvon in a "life threatening brawl" in the wet, muddy grass, squirming on his back to get his head off of a sidewalk, killed an unarmed minor, flipped that dead unarmed minor onto his belly, straddled him and spread his arms apart with his gun still in your hands, restrain that dead unarmed teenager .... and did not have any defensive wounds on his hand at all and did not even get any dirt under his fingernails -- in fact, Zimmerman's hand look pristine.

Here are pictures of the back of Zimmerman's jacket taken about 45 minutes after he killed Trayvon Martin. Notice, no dirt, no mud, no scuff marks.  Yet he claims he squirmed in the muddy grass with a 150 pound teenager on top of him to get his head off of a sidewalk as that teenager is allegedly punching him in the face 25-30 times.
 photo Zimmermansbackjacket_zpsf6baa9be.jpg
(Back of Zimmerman's Jacket 45 minutes after he was alleged on his back in a bloody, muddy scuffle)

Remember, Zimmerman admits that he pinned Martin face down in the wet, muddy grass.

ZIMMERMAN: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands, so I thought he had a weapon, so I grabbed his hands and pushed them away from his body, and I said, "STOP! Don't move." He was saying something like "ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing" and I said, "STOP, don't move" and then somebody came and had a flashlight and I thought was a cop and I said - oh and I still had my gun in my hand as I was holding his hands apart and I said are you a cop he said "no" but I'll call them.  I said, "I don't need you to do that I need you to help me restrain this guy."
Therefore, since Zimmerman admits he pinned Martin "face down" it is no surprise that Martin's pants have mud and dirt on the front of them.
 photo trayvonmartinpantsfront_zpsa1bdbd96.jpg
The front of Martin's pants show dirt and mud from which is consistant with Zimmerman's admitting that he pinned Trayvon face down after he shot and killed Trayvon.

Zimmerman claims that while he was on his back, he squirmed and squirmed and shimmied on the muddy wet grass to get his head off of the sidewalk but the back of his blue jeans are as "pristine" as his hands

 photo zimmermanpantsbackside_zps23efa27d.jpg

EMS Report describes Zimmerman as having "minor bleeding" and does not make a claim that Zimmerman had a broken nose.  In fact, to date, no document from any licensed medical doctor has ever diagnosed Zimmerman with a broken nose.  Zimmerman told his family Physician Assistant that "EMS told him" he had a broken nose but we see from EMS report that Zimmerman lied to his PA when he told her that.
 photo ZimmermanEMTReport_zps93e51a82.jpg

Only TIP of Zimmerman's nose is bleeding and not his nostrils - which means Zimmerman was not punched in the nose 25-30 times as he claims.
 photo zimmermannosetip_zps05afb9f2.jpg
The above picture is a picture Officer Wagner took of Zimmerman's nose before EMS used peroxide to clean his blood. Notice, no blood coming from Zimmerman's nostrils.  Blood only coming from tip of Zimmerman's nose.

 photo zimmermannosetipatSPD2pinholes_zps2a52bf2a.jpg
Sanford Police Department took the above picture about 45 minutes after Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, you can see two pinholes on the tip of Zimmerman's nose which is exactly the location of the bleeding Officer Wagner's picture shows.

 photo Zimmermanheadnotreallybleeding_zps6daa7885.jpg

Officer Wagner took the above picture of the back of Zimmerman's head before EMS used peroxide to clean the blood.  Notice the streams of blood have a defined path flowing toward the front of Zimmerman's face which is not consistent with bleeding on his back. Also, the defined streams are not consistent with Zimmerman laying on his back, getting his head slammed against a sidewalk over a dozen times while simultaneously "squirming" and "shimmying" on his back to get his head off of the sidewalk.

The DNA report shows that none of Zimmerman's DNA is under Trayvon Martin's fingernails which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon grabbed his head with a tight enough grip to slam his head in the sidewalk over a dozen times.

DNA report shows none of Zimmerman's DNA on the cuff/sleeve of Trayvon's hoodie or long sleeve shirt which underscores none of Zimmerman's blood was splattering onto Martin's cuff/sleeves during Zimmerman's allegation that Trayvon punched him in the nose 25-30 times.

Autopsy Report does not state that Trayvon had any: blood, dirt, mud, defensive, or offensive wounds on his: hands, knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs -- which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose 25-30 times, covered his nose and mouth while at the same slamming his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times.

I have no idea how Zimmerman got two small cuts, with "minor bleeding" on the back of his head, nor do I know how Zimmerman got two bleeding pinholes on the tip of his nose.  I do not even know "why" Zimmerman "thought" he needed to avoid shooting his own left hand - which was allegedly used to pull Martin's hand off Zimmerman's nose -- when he allegedly pulled his weapon from his right hip, and from his right hip shot and killed Trayvon Martin through the heart.

But I do know that the DNA report and Autopsy Report do not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon caused Zimmerman's injuries.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (227+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pork Que, dream weaver, Horace Boothroyd III, Siri, litho, leftykook, ZappoDave, BOHICA, slippytoad, Youffraita, Eileen B, Chi, TheMeansAreTheEnd, arizonablue, nomandates, Lost and Found, One Pissed Off Liberal, Empower Ink, Dancun74, blueoregon, doroma, keepemhonest, Mary Mike, pierre9045, The Voice from the Cave, stunvegas, CTDemoFarmer, JDWolverton, Steven D, mconvente, murphy, amsterdam, akmk, MartyM, big mouth, 88kathy, eru, Murphoney, vixenflem, Blu Gal in DE, Rogneid, JoanMar, millwood, second gen, Mayfly, Timari, Joy of Fishes, TeamSarah4Choice, pgm 01, leonard145b, Ekaterin, OldSoldier99, MA Liberal, Joieau, Gemina13, ask, celdd, luckylizard, edg, Jay C, DefendOurConstitution, newpioneer, AsianAfricanAmerican, madgranny, political mutt, Nag, Sam Sara, stevie avebury, TracieLynn, Temmoku, belinda ridgewood, rasbobbo, joelgp, Its a New Day, deha, Libbylalala, a2nite, S F Hippie, Check077, Tonedevil, dlemex, thomask, sebastianguy99, SuetheRedWA, blue91, sb, Nica24, Remediator, Dvalkure, Jim Domenico, greycat, also mom of 5, geebeebee, SteelerGrrl, BadKitties, lexalou, lcrp, Bernie68, Lefty Ladig, Ricochet67, Diogenes2008, devis1, thepothole, Dem Beans, pat bunny, susans, Debby, Lilyvt, Torta, itsbenj, anodnhajo, OldDragon, HappyinNM, bronte17, Knucklehead, catly, countwebb, Tunk, Matt Z, sow hat, sceptical observer, Susipsych, Davui, nargel, cybersaur, middleagedhousewife, virginwoolf, sagesource, exNYinTX, VTCC73, petesmom, Grandma Susie, majcmb1, Trendar, greengemini, Denise Oliver Velez, scamperdo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, joanbrooker, Rosaura, Ditch Mitch KY, dotsright, ruscle, MikeBoyScout, suesue, Glen The Plumber, solliges, peacestpete, Aaa T Tudeattack, blueoasis, edsbrooklyn, dksbook, NJpeach, Sychotic1, FloridaSNMOM, harlinchi, splashy, spunhard, indie17, expatjourno, mujr, aitchdee, GustavMahler, AlyoshaKaramazov, Lilredhead, ColoTim, Barbara Morrill, joynow, sawgrass727, royce, Bridge Master, Teiresias70, Chaddiwicker, erratic, etherealfire, tuesdayschilde, Lujane, Seneca Doane, Mathazar, JekyllnHyde, teabaggerssuckbalz, lcs, rb608, bythesea, CocoaLove, BYw, spooks51, kurt, mozartssister, seriously70, science nerd, badlands, Pandora, 207wickedgood, petulans, maybeeso in michigan, DarthMeow504, maxcat06, radical simplicity, pixxer, ljb, chimene, Jeff Y, WakeUpNeo, LaughingPlanet, DerAmi, rlb, Dirk McQuigley, Shippo1776, Nowhere Man, emekz1, rocksout, worldlotus, Robynhood too, mango, JamieG from Md, MarciaJ720, c0wfunk, vahana, BeninSC, retLT, libnewsie, Heart n Mind, GrannyRedBird, Debbie in ME, NancyWH, armadillo
    • did this happen? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Where did the lie start?  Who propelled it forward?  And how do you know that the accepted "wisdom" is completely false?  

      You know you're in Oregon when you only see people using an umbrella to protect themselves from the sun.

      by Keith930 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:23:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mr. Zimmerman... (5+ / 0-)

        had his nose looked at by an EMT who said he should have it looked at by a Doctor. To keep the record straight, Mr. Zimmerman declined the opportunities afforded him to go to the emergency room. The next day he went to the Dr. Office, as ordered by HR where he worked, where he was seen by a Physicians Assistant who told him to be looked at by a specialist. Again Mr. Zimmerman declined to have his injuries looked at any further. No actual Medical Doctors involved in the diagnosis and no modern medical equipment used to come to the diagnosis.

        This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

        by Tonedevil on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:30:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Zimmerman's injuries (38+ / 0-)

    both front and back, his face and back of head always looked self inflicted to me. It looks like he banged his head against a concrete wall and then hit himself in the nose with his gun, that's my guess, or the gun hit him in the nose a little bit.

    How he was able to do that before the guy with flashlight was there I dunno, but I assume Zimmerman had enough seconds to pull off the fake injuries.

  •  The DNA evidence does not (23+ / 0-)

    support Zimmerman's story, true.   If Zimmerman's DNA were under Martin's fingernails, for example, or if the "inconclusive" sample on Martin's sleeve had been enough to be conclusive and had been Zimmerman's, that would support Zimmerman's story.  So, it's fair to say that the DNA sampling does not support Zimmerman's story.

    Whether it disputes Z is a different question.  That will be hotly contested, I think.   Typically, it's not just someone like you or me deciding what things "should" look like if, for example, Martin hit Zimmerman.  That's because our notions of what the forensics "should" look like are often unreliable.  Typically, you would need an expert to testify what the forensics "should" look like and whether what was found conforms with Zimmerman's story.  If it's just a matter of your opinion or my opinion of what things "should" look like if Zimmerman's story were true, then it's pretty easy for the defense to argue reasonable doubt.  

    It will be interesting to see if the prosecution has any qualified witness to testify that the forensics actually dispute Zimmerman's story.  If they have someone like that, that would go far in convincing the jury that the prosecution had met a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."  If not, they may be relegated to arguing that the forensics don't support Zimmerman's story, which (especially with things like an inconclusive sample) is far less convincing of an argument, and far less likely to meet a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    •  Prima facie case for self defense requires (41+ / 0-)

      evidence to even get the instruction, much achieve the standard of reasonable doubt

      What are you saying here? That despite the fact that the physical evidence may not prove Zimmerman's statement that they are nevertheless going to be proven?

      How? Are you assuming he's goign to testify? Because I can understand better with that argument.

      Up until now, many o fyou have said "Oh he doesn't need to testify, the circumstancial evidence alone will prove escalation"

      Someone writes a diary of one example of the evidence among many that does not corraborate and, therefore are inconsistent with Zimmerman's claims, and you say it doesn't prove inconsistency.

      First, that's b.s. It either corraborates or it doesn't. This isn't a neutral point.

      Second, what evidence do you think will demonstrate TM escalated?

      Finally, going back to Zimmerman, as i have said, his problem is precisely that the only way he gets to make his escalation defense is to get on the stand. Something the defense has been trying to avoid because they know that his testimony is impeachable by prior inconsistent statements and its very difficult for him to make an argument that's consistent with the physical evidence now without making up a new story, which would sink him

      As a general rule, they way cases are decided  is mostly through circumstantial evidence that demonstrates whether what happen through consistency.

      Meaning DNA evidence, the 911 phone call, the location of the body, the physical injuries Zimmerman had, size of the  victim, the size of the defendant, and many other things should be consistent with something or not.

      Sometimes they aren't and then you can raise reasonable doubt. But to just say "it doesn't matter" is jury nullification.

        •  Thanks, but what I am trying (18+ / 0-)

          to push here is that there are metrics for examining the case that aren't about whether you or I feel the defendant is guilty or whether or not they feel he's innocent, and that a real discussion had to involve those metrics

          The above is just that sort of metrics- corroborating evidence and consistency are extremely important to building a circumstantial case for both sides

          Zimmerman has a vested interest in telling the story that will get hiim o ut of jail. The prosecution has a vested interest, because they believe he's guilty of not seeing that happen, so what we re left with is supporting evidence

          The idea that all Zimmerman need to is testify which raises the problem of his statements being inconsistent and that there is no physical evidence that's consistent with his actual claims- is a violation of some basic metrics for looking at the case

          Everyone should be focused on these sorts of standards

          That's why I like the diary

      •  My point is that the absence of support (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, soros, Dogs are fuzzy, ColoTim

        is not the same as disputing Zimmerman's story.  See, for example, Adam's comment below -- the NIH study indicated that even why people scratched someone else, DNA was found under their fingernails only a low percentage of the time.  The absence of support is not the same as disputing the story.  The only way you can reach the conclusion that the absence of support means that it disputes the story is to have a forensics expert testify as to all those things that the diary assumes are true, like the fact that DNA "should" be beneath Martin's fingernails if he hit Zimmerman.  In other words, if Z's DNA had been found beneath Martin's fingernails, that evidence would support the notion that Martin hit Zimmerman.  But the fact that no DNA was found (if you believe that NIH study Adam cited) does not mean that Martin did not hit Zimmerman.  It just means that the DNA does not prove that he did.  

        There is a big difference, in the law, between the absence of evidentiary support for a fact, and evidence refuting that fact.  The only way you can say that the absence of evidence refutes a fact is if you have an expert, qualified to render an opinion on that topic, testify that, for example, the science shows that if the story were true, the evidence would necessarily show up.  That was my point.  If the prosecution wants to make the arguments in the diary, it has to be done with a forensics expert, qualified to make the kinds of conclusions the diary makes.  

        And making a prima facie case for self-defense, which does nothing more than shift the burden to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is NOT self-defense, is a very low standard.  The standard for a prima facie case is generally, the evidence, if it were not contradicted by anything else, is enough to support the notion that a fact could be true.  It is not proof that a fact is true.  It does not take into account any evidence to the contrary.  In other words, Zimmerman's statements to the police and his injuries, if you take into account nothing else, are enough to establish a prima facie case that Martin hit Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot in response -- given just those facts, and not considering anything to the country, you could conclude that it was self-defense.  All that does is shift the burden to the prosecution -- the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self-defense.  

        •  Do you think a "scratch" is the same as grabbing (14+ / 0-)

          someone's bald held so tightly that you can slam it, up and down, up and down over a dozen times?

          I don't think they are the same, but if you, it's your deal.

          •  I'm not a forensics expert, so I don't know (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            evanaj, ColoTim, Bailey2001

            whether, in doing that, one would expect to find DNA under fingernails or not.  

            I would think that using your fingernails to scratch someone makes it MORE likely that their DNA remains under your fingernails, but I'm not qualified to make that determination.  There are typically scientific studies on that, which is why you would have to have an expert testify one way or the other.

            •  You keep citing only the lack of DNA (6+ / 0-)

              under his fingernails as not being conclusive. There's the lack of DNA, the lack of bruising or swelling on Trayvon's hands, the lack of dirt, grass or even moisture on Zimmerman's back, the lack of any of Zimmerman's blood spatter on Trayvon, the lack of any defensive wounds on Zimmerman. You must take the evidence in its entirety. That's how the jury will look at it.

              The prosecution has to present evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not justified in his use of deadly force. The evidence, Zimmerman's clean jacket, Trayvon's unbruised hands and lack of blood spatter on his clothes, shows the attack did not take place as Zimmerman claims. The attack was his justification. If the prosecution can show the attack didn't happen as he claims, his justification is gone.

              Never mind the fact that Trayvon was pursued through that subdivision. Per Florida law, he didn't even have a duty to retreat and by Zimmerman's own account on the 911 call, Trayvon did try to run away. Zimmerman followed him against the order of the 911 operator. Anything Trayvon did after that point was self-defense. He was killed while standing HIS ground.

              If I run away and someone chases me down, even if I turn around and punch him in the nose he shouldn't have the right to shoot me dead. I'm appalled at anyone who actually thinks they do.

              "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

              by Siri on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 01:30:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think coffeetalk is suggesting that last (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                paragraph at all.  I think coffeetalk is addressing one very narrow point (DNA under fingernails) and is not addressing all the rest of your post.

                I agree with you that there should not be any way what Zimmerman did can be considered anything other than his recklessness and enthusiasm led to his killing Trayvon Martin in a manner against the law.  I think the evidence presented in this diary does destroy Zimmerman's story and if he tries to present this to the jury he'll have it successfully countermanded.  He's got nothing else, however.  I am not specifically familiar with Florida's laws about what is 2nd Degree murder vs. manslaughter and I hope the jury gets to decide to use the lesser charge if they can't come to agreement for 2nd Degree murder.  I don't want him to go free after this, like OJ did (yes, I believe OJ was guilty of murdering his wife).  If it were me on the jury, I'd want to know what the standards are for 2nd Degree Murder because I think Zimmerman purposefully hunted Trayvon and when he panicked at the confrontation, he went for deadly force, no matter what did/didn't happen between them.  I don't think manslaughter is the right verdict, but I am also not particularly familiar with what differentiates the two.

                We'll see.

        •  Your point is a weak one (16+ / 0-)

          Its typical of your arguments here

          I already know what you are describing, and if you took a second to think about it, you would realize that I am rebutting in the above comments I already made

          The problem is that 1. if he testifies 2. he has an impeachment problem and therefore 3. needs coraborating evidence of what he's saying

          Note the difference of what you are saying versus what I said. You are trying to pick on soe simple frame. I am trying to demonstratet hat actually the lack of physical evidence given the context is a huge problem since the defendant's word is problematic at best when it comes to trial

          •  Actually, what law says is that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, dougymi, soros

            Zimmerman just needs to make a prima facie case, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that it was NOT self-defense.  I quote extensively from a recent Florida case discussing that standard in a comment below.  If you are interested, the pdf of the decision is here.

            As that case indicates, the "prima facie" standard - which is where you consider facts as if they were not contradicted by other evidence -- --  means that, in the words of that Florida court,  the "law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."  Zimmerman's statements to the police after the shooting plus his injuries, if they were not contradicted by other evidence, are enough to make a prima facie case that he could have acted in self defense -- not that he did.  (And, of course, the prosecution can contest that.)  Zimmerman will likely not have to testify to establish a prima facie case (assuming the jury hears his statements to the police, which they likely will).  Once Zimmerman establishes a prima facie case of self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did NOT act in self-defense, and to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  

            My point is that the absence of DNA does not prove that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  But, the only way it proves that he did NOT act in self-defense is if there is a forensics expert to testify that, based on peer-tested science, if a, b, and c had happened, they you would necessarily see x, y, and z in the forensic evidence, and that the absence of x, y, and z means that a, b, and c did not happen.  

            The diary speculates that the absence of x, y, and z in the forensic evidence means that Zimmerman's story did not happen.  That's interesting speculation, but the jury can't consider it unless it comes from the sworn testimony of someone qualified to speak on the forensics.  

            •  you just repeated your last post (11+ / 0-)

              which doesn't rebutt my thesis, which is this in the case law

              "Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011) the District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted second degree murder. There was evidence that there had been an earlier altercation that day between the two men and that the defendant had attempted to run over the victim with his motorcycle. When the victim went to the store two or three hours later, the defendant was there. The defendant testified that the victim got out of his car and rushed towards him attacking him. The defendant said that he shot the victim because he was losing consciousness and was afraid the victim would kill him. The victim testified that when they arrived at the store the defendant banged on the back window of the victim's car, that he (the victim) got out of the car, the defendant approached the victim, and the two "got locked up" and "tussled a bit" when the defendant shot the victim."

              You are engaged in legal sophistry and I am tired of it

              Anyone else who wants to sit here to argue with you is free to do so,b ut they should realize you have all the trappings of legal analysis without the actual analysis.

              •  My point was that he doesn't need to testify (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                in order to establish a prima facie case.  His taped statements to the police (which the jury will almost certainly see) and pictures of his injuries, are likely enough to do that.  

                And so, even if he doesn't testify, the prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not act in self-defense.  

                •  his taped statements put you in the same position (10+ / 0-)

                  that you  are  in with his testimony.

                  thats not even getting into the procedural issues

                •  and if you are referring to the pre shooting (12+ / 0-)

                  comments on the 911 call that's not corraborating his position. it harms it.

                •  one other point (10+ / 0-)

                  the wounds have to be shown to be consistent with his statements again or else they can and will be explained in terms of provocation

                  That the jury will be instructed that a self defense claim cannot be found if there wasn't escallation

                  its really irrelevant that he has wounds if he cannot show escallation throught hose wounds

                  That will be a matter of expert testimoy, which you already state you aren't

                  the woulds without his testimony are next to useless

                  •  Let me see if I can explain what I am saying (7+ / 0-)

                    another way.  

                    I am NOT SAYING that Zimmerman can prove he acted in self-defense.  I am NOT SAYING that the evidence, taken as a whole, supports his contention that he acted in self defense.

                    I am talking about a very very very narrow question -- whether he has ANY evidence at all, even if that evidence is unconvincing, even if that evidence is contradicted by other evidence -- to support a contention of self-defense.  That's what a prima facie case means.  

                    If he doesn't have ANY evidence at all -- meaning he has no prima facie case -- then the question of self-defense does not even GO to the jury. The jury never decides if he was acting in self-defense.  Period.  If he has enough evidence so that the jury gets to decide whether he acted in self-defense, that's a prima facie case.  The law basically says a lawyer can't argue self-defense to the jury if you've got absolutely nothing whatsoever -- no statement of the defendant, no injuries whatsoever, no witnesses whatsoever -- to support it.  You don't even get to ASK the jury to find that the defendant acted in self-defense.  A lawyer can't just stand up there and say,  "I think he acted in self-defense; trust me, I'm telling you the truth."  The lawyer has to have something he can point to -- even if it's just the statement of the defendant that he gave to the police.  Then the lawyer can say, "Mr. Defendant told the police that he acted in self-defense, so based on that, I think you should find he acted in self-defense."  That's a prima facie case.  The jury could not believe that for a second.  The jury could say, well, I would believe Mr. Defendant, except for the mountain of evidence contradicting him. That's fine. That doesn't mean the defendant has not made a prima facie case.  The fact that the jury gets to decide the issue at all means that there's SOME evidence -- something -- to support the defendant, even if it's the defendant's own statement.  

                    As you might imagine, the standard you have to meet to get to the point where the jury gets to decide whether you acted in self-defense is pretty low.  You basically have to have something -- a picture, a statement, something -- that could support a self-defense claim.  That just means the jury gets to decide it, NOT that you've proven it.  And, it also means that the prosecution can introduce a boatload of evidence to contradict your claim, if the prosecution has that evidence.  And it all goes to the jury for the jury to decide.  

                    And in Florida criminal law, once you've met that low standard, it's up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you DIDN'T act in self defense.  

                    One more time:  I AM NOT SAYING THAT ZIMMERMAN CAN PROVE THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. I am simply saying that there's enough to let the jury decide the issue.  

                    •  There is NO evidence to support GZ self defense (6+ / 0-)

                      claim ... none.

                      DNA report does not support Zimmerman's claim

                      Autopsy report does not support Zimmerman's claim.

                      TWO witnesses say they saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon

                      ONE witness "thought" Travyon was on top but it was "too dark to see" and he did not go "outside" he only "looked out his back door"

                      ONE witness says she saw one man running after another person.  She said the "chase" started close to where Martin's dad was living and one man was chasing someone and there was about 10 feet between them

                      There is NO evidence to support GZ self defense claim.

                      •  Zimmerman's taped statement to the police is (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        soros, VClib, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                        evidence.  You -- and the jury -- may think it's unreliable evidence.  You and the jury may think he was lying through his teeth. The prosecution may pick it apart with other evidence contradicting it.  The jury may end up not believing any of it.  But it counts as evidence.  Assuming the jury sees that tape (which they almost certainly will) that's evidence to support his claim.  

                        •  Notice we're zoomed in very tightly on one point (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Adam B, VClib, Dr Swig Mcjigger, Kathy S, dfe

                          What coffeetalk is analyzing is not whether Z is a lying scumbag, not whether he acted in self-defense, not whether a reasonable person would believe he acted in self-defense, but narrowly whether he meets the legal standard for being allowed to have a jury weigh the issue.

                          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                          by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:32:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  As another example. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VClib, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                        Suppose the trial is about a car accident.  Driver 1 testifies he was going 10 miles an hour.  That's evidence.  Let's say the skid marks show he was going around 50 mph, and there's a "black box" in the car that recorded him going 50.  That means that the jury probably won't believe that evidence that he was  going 10 mph.  But it's still evidence.  

                        That's what juries do -- weight the evidence on both sides and decide which to believe.  

                    •  Ok, I thought you probably had... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      an implication in your premise that the prosecutorial evidence had a very high likelihood of piercing the veil of any evidence that the defense could conjure up in respect to Zimmerman's potential prima facie claim.

                      Okay, this was an interesting discussion.

                    •  That's hearsay (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bruh1, Tonedevil, doroma, amsterdam
                      Then the lawyer can say, "Mr. Defendant told the police that he acted in self-defense, so based on that, I think you should find he acted in self-defense."
                      Per Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.
                      •  If the prosecution introduces it (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dr Swig Mcjigger, VClib

                        without the objection of the defendant, or if the prosecution introduces part of it and the defense convinces the Court that the entire statement needs to come it, it comes it.  

                        I think the prosecution has to introduce Zimmerman's statements to the police,  Much of their evidence comes from Zimmerman's own mouth.  

                        I agree with you that, IF the prosecution doesn't introduce any of Zimmerman's statements to the police, then the defense can't, and Zimmerman will likely testify himself.  

                        •  I think the prosecution (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          doroma, RobertSF, dfe

                          is smart enough, not to make GZ's case for him. Their case does not rely on GZ's statements. They can just use the 911 call, DD's statements, the 911 calls, eye witness statements, forensic evidence, GZ's admission that he shot Trayvon and then rest their case. Then use whatever is necessary to rebut the defense.

                          •  Cannot use DeeDee's statements (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            clearly hearsay.  And the defense will object.  I can't imagine her testimony as to what Travyon told her Z was doing ever get to the jury.  

                          •  Not all of Dee Dee's testimony is hearsay (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            amsterdam, doroma, HappyinNM, Tonedevil

                            Recall the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions. Also keep in mind that part of her testimony is about what she heard, not about what Martin told her.

                            The part where Martin mentions that he's outside his father's house (his father's girlfriend's condo, actually) is admissible. The part where he says that there's that man (Zimmerman) again is admissible.

                            And the part where she hears Martin say, "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman reply, "What are you doing here?" is also admissible. These were not statements told to her but simply things that she heard.

                            These limitations actually benefit the prosecution because they go to the meat of the case, and they prevent the defense from cross-examining over irrelevant nonsense and making the witness look bad.

                          •  I disagree, but we'll have to see (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            what the judge lets in.  I can't imagine that Martin's statements to her over the phone are excited utterances or present sense exceptions.  I think she can testify as to noises she heard, and the times she was on the phone with Martin, but I really doubt the part about where Martin is and whether he sees Zimmerman are going to be allowed.  

                            This is one of the many  interesting questions that will come up at trial.  

                          •  How do these statements (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dancun74, Tonedevil

                            " this dude is watching me" and "he is following me", "he is following me again", " he is getting real close"
                            not fit the present sense exception?

                            Present Sense Impression. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement "That green pickup truck is going to run that red light."
                          •  That could be a close call (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger, VClib

                            "This dude is watching me" and "he is following me again" bother require conclusions, on Martin's part, based on Martin's opinion or inferences into what Zimmerman was doing. Statements which require inferences, conclusions or opinion are not covered under the present sense exception. "He is getting close" probably has a little better shot of getting in.

                            I'm not saying it can't come in under the exception, I've seen judges go both ways on these close calls. But it's not clear cut.

                            Black Holes Suck.

                            by Pi Li on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:50:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But Martin's location is present sense impression (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TeamSarah4Choice, doroma

                            Martin told her he was outside the condo he was visiting, and "a couple of minutes later" (Dee Dee's words), Martin said Zimmerman was approaching. Those are not conclusions but just observations.

                            And their importance is that they counter Zimmerman's claim that he just walked back and forth, West to East and back again, on the upper bar of the T. They show that he was almost 500 feet away, down by Brandy Green's condo.

                          •  The "location" is present sense impression (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree, which is why I said "He is getting close" has a fair shot of getting in.

                            But as I said, "This dude is watching me" and "he is following me again" both require conclusions, on Martin's part, based on Martin's opinion or inferences into what Zimmerman was doing.  

                            Was he watching him, or just looking that direction? Was he following him, or just walking in the same direction? Now, before you say it, certainly, we know that Zimmerman was in fact both watching and following Martin, but that alone doesn't make the hearsay anymore admissible.

                            Black Holes Suck.

                            by Pi Li on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:25:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's actually ok (0+ / 0-)

                            Simply proving that Zimmerman was down by Brandy Green's condo is enough to destroy his claim to self-defense.

                          •  I think some of those statements (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, TeamSarah4Choice, Tonedevil

                            will come in under hearsay exceptions, such as
                            Excited utterance
                            Present sense impression
                            A statement made under the believe of impending death
                            Then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition

                        •  Why would the prosecution introduce Z's statements (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          doroma, amsterdam, Tonedevil

                          There are only three elements to proving murder in the second degree in Florida.

                          "The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . ."
                          The first two are given, and I think the prosecution can prove the "depraved mind regardless of human life" without introducing Zimmerman's exculpatory statements. The act of running in the night, armed with a gun, after someone you think is a criminal goes far in proving the "depraved mind regardless of human life" because he's putting himself in a situation where anybody could get hurt. He could have killed a passerby or someone in their home.

                          Of course, Zimmerman will then claim self-defense, at which point the prosecution can use Zimmerman's exculpatory and inconsistent statements to poke holes in his claim.

                      •  Thats correct and I believe thats true of Fl (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        doroma, RobertSF, Tonedevil


                        I didn't even want to get into the admissability issue

                      •  Good lord, that's a reason to remain silent (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RobertSF, worldlotus

                        In other words, anything you say can be used against you, but nothing you say can be used in your favor, unless you take the risk of testifying for yourself in front of a questioner who's smarter than you are?

                        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                        by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:36:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, that's why "never talk to the police." (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          amsterdam, Tonedevil, worldlotus

                          Even if you're innocent, beyond a few basic statements of fact, don't talk to the police.

                          If you come home, and the cops are all over your neighbor's house, and it looks like someone killed your neighbor, and the police ask you where you've been all day, it's fine to say you were at work and just got home. But if they start asking you what was your relationship with the victim and if you ever had any arguments or disputes, it's time to say, "Sorry, officer, I'll need to get an attorney before talking further."

                •  How in the heck it's self defense when it noted... (5+ / 0-)

                  that Zimmerman was the one that escalated the situation by even approaching the victim, Martin.

                  This is what I hate about the inherently prejudices of the criminal justice system. It's always a complicated issue when Martin killed the boy in cold blood.

                  •  If the roles were reversed... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dancun74, Tonedevil, mrblifil

                    it would be a totally different issue.

                  •  ....when Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood... (3+ / 0-)

                    I'm sorry for the misstatement.

                  •  its not likely escalation (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    amsterdam, Tonedevil

                    what they aren't saying here and I should is that escalation works like this

                    I provoke you by punching you

                    You respond by pulling out a gun to shoot me

                    I stab you

                    That's classic escalation because you responded to force with deadly force

                    Its a higher standard than mere response as Coffee and others keep saying

                    This is why I question their understanding of the law to even get the instruction there must be more than force

                    It must be a situation in which TM having been provoked escallates to threaten Zimmerman

                    Its why Zimmerman claims by the way that TM didn't see the gun at first

                    He can't show escalation without the timing

                    Its not even something that would necessarily got to the jury aas self defense because he needs the timing to show it

                    This logically follows from the law

                    FL Case law that i have seen seems to back up what I think to be logically the case based on my understanding of self defense laws

                    What you have here are people superficially reading laws and syaing "see its easy for him"

                    But the deeper reading of the actual law doesn'ts ay what they are saying

                    Its not enough to say that it was attacked- he must have been in fear for his life since factually he provoked and was arguing with the defendant (we know that because of testimony stating they heard an argument and a fight)

                    This is why I keep harping on the prima facie case

                    There's a very small needle they must thread

                    eg sowing the timing is necessary so they ust introduce evidence of that

                    They can't really despite claims here show that throw taped statements alone because the rules of evidence doesn't allow that but I have avoided getting to deep into the laws

                    so, ultimately what you see here to me is either lawyers who should know better manipulate the ingorance of none lawyers or people with agenda who don't understand the complexity of what they are describing.

                  •  The jury may decide it's simple (0+ / 0-)

                    They're not lawyers.

                    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                    by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  But defendant must offer facts, not lies. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, amsterdam, Sychotic1, Dancun74

              If the prosecution proves that defendant's claims include lies in his favor, that pretty much destroys his claims. After all, although people under oath are granted the presumption that they're speaking truthfully, catching someone under oath in a lie gives the jury the right to reject any or all of that person's testimony.

              As for Zimmerman's statements to police, federal rules of evidence say that defendant's exculpatory statements to law enforcement are inadmissible as hearsay. If the defendant wants the jury to hear his self-defense claim, and there are no witnesses to make that claim for him, he needs to get in the witness box and tell the jury what happened. Of course, that opens him up for cross-examination.

              •  That is for the jury to decide (0+ / 0-)

                In almost every trial, the jury believes some evidence, and doesn't believe other evidence.

                I am assuming that the prosecution will offer Zimmerman's taped statement into evidence in the case in chief -- the prosecution needs to show the jury his statements that he admitted to shooting Martin, and for completeness, the court will likely allow the entire statement of how that shooting happened.  

                Most of the evidence the prosecution has came from Zimmerman's own mouth.  And much of the prosecution's case is demonstrating that the story Zimmerman told is contradicted by other evidence.  The prosecution's case is bolstered by the argument that Zimmerman did not tell police the truth when he was questioned.  In order to prove that Zimmerman was not telling the truth when he was questioned, they have to show the jury what he said when he was questioned.  

                •  no its not that simple (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, Dancun74, amsterdam, Tonedevil

                  its not just for hte jury to decided

                  again read the case i keep citing

                  part of the fact patern was that the defendant testified his account of what happened and the attempt murder victim stated his

                  the appealate held that due to provocation the escallation wasn't required as a part of the instructions to the jury

                  the jury never got to hear the instructions at all and therefore could not decide the case on the escalation law

                  its harder here from an evidence stand point to show the necessary facts to demonstration escalation than you think

                  •  What Zimmerman told the police (0+ / 0-)

                    is that he was walking back to his car and Martin came up to him and started the confrontation -- that Martin came up to him and hit him first, got him on the ground and was bashing his head in when Zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot him.  

                    Even if ultimately the jury doesn't buy a word of that, if that story comes into evidence, either because the prosecution offers the tapes of Z's interview with the police (likely, in my view) or he testifies to that, that's prima facie evidence that A shot him in self-defense.

                    The jury may ultimately decide that's all a bunch of BS, but that's enough, along with injuries that pretty clearly occurred during that same time frame, to get to the jury on the question of self-defense.  

                    •  Zimmerman admitted HE WALKED UP TO MARTIN (6+ / 0-)
                      GZ: Because when I walked past, I didn’t see him down here. I went, so I walked through to make sure . You know, I looked to make sure he wasn’t there.

                      Detective: OK.

                      GZ: And then when I walked back towards him I, I saw him coming at me and I went to grab my phone. I don’t remember if I had time to pull it out or not.

                      There is Zimmerman admitting he "walked back towards Trayvon and "saw him coming at me"

                      No bushes, not from behind, no jumping -- Zimmerman said when I walked back towards him

                •  That is a pretty vague statement (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, Tonedevil
                  Most of the evidence the prosecution has came from Zimmerman's own mouth.
                  Care to elaborate with examples of this evidence the prosecution has to rely on? I think the prosecution will only use the 911 call. They have no use for any of the other statements.
                  •  We'll see. I think that much of the prosecution's (0+ / 0-)

                    case is based on a notion that Zimmerman was not completely truthful with the police about what happened.  

                    In order to demonstrate that Zimmerman's statements to the police were not truthful, the jury has to hear those statements.

                    If the prosecution gets through its entire case without introducing Z's statements, then Z will almost certainly get on the stand and testify, and establish a prima facie case that way.  The jury ultimately may decide they don't believe him, but it will be enough to get to the jury and put the burden on the prosecution.

              •  Zooming way, way out (5+ / 0-)

                There's a lesson here for anyone who ever uses force in self-defense, be it pepper-spraying a rapist or pulling a gun on a mob of gay-bashers.

                Never lie.

                Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:43:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  by the way (11+ / 0-)

          I won't do it again because its clear you won't pay attentnion

          but I've already cited actual cases whether this issue has come up and the fact is they agree with my position in the state of Florida about the defense's hurdle

          I know what the standards are at least from the case law I've read. I don't claim to be an expert.  The real question is do you. Becuase so far, nothing you post indicates you have anything other than a basic understanding.

        •  I understand what you're saying. (4+ / 0-)

          There's a difference between evidence that proves a fact could be true and evidence that proves a fact is true.

          However, when you have multiple pieces of evidence that a fact could be true, in the minds of reasonable people, that adds up to the fact being true. It's not just the DNA evidence. It's also --

          1.- The lack of injury to Martin's hands suggests he didn't hit Zimmerman.
          2.- The lack of defensive injuries to Zimmerman's hands suggest he wasn't in a fist fight.
          3.- The lack of black eyes, abrasions, swelling, or other signs of trauma except for a small 1/8" wide abrasion between his eyes surrounded by light, localized swelling and two small cuts on the tip of his nose suggest he was not the victim of a beating. Here's what a beating looks like.
          4.- The inconsistent statements to police about how the attack happened weakens the claim that an attack happened at all.
          5.- The two small, clean cuts on Zimmerman's head suggest his head was not slammed against the concrete over and over and over.
          6.- The difficulty of slamming someone's head repeatedly against the ground suggests that it didn't happen.
          7.- The fact that Martin's phone was found on the grass suggests he was holding it at the time the attack supposedly happened, and who launches an attack with only one hand?

          Once you put all that together, and weight it against the claims of the defendant, claims that are naturally self-serving, the difference between could be true and is true becomes awfully small.

          Many Zimmerman supporters take comfort in the fact that his guilt must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," but they seem to think this involves mathematical proof. It doesn't. Beyond reasonable doubt just means that the jury has no doubt.

          To illustrate how that works, suppose you live with a roommate, and one morning, your OJ is gone, and the empty container is in the trash can. Your roommate denies taking it and challenge you to "prove it." Well, you can't prove it since you didn't have the foresight to install hidden security cameras, but you know "beyond reasonable doubt" that he did it, right? That's how it works with juries too.

          •  I completely agree with your statement (0+ / 0-)

            of how things work.  

            Those are exactly the kinds of things that the jury will weigh.  Sometimes circumstantial evidence can convict.  

            What I am saying, however, is that the diary relies on the assumption (for example) that if Martin grabbed Zimmerman or hit him with a closed fist, you'd expect to see DNA under Martin's fingernails.  It's the "you'd expect to see" part that will likely requires testimony by a forensics expert.  That's not the kind of thing where a non-expert can express an opinion to the jury.

            •  You have a point there. Need an expert witness. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amsterdam, Tonedevil

              But I'm sure the prosecution has an expert witness lined up.

              I've heard say that virtually all evidence except witness statements is circumstantial, and that circumstantial evidence is actually more powerful than witness statements because witnesses are notoriously unreliable, prone to memory lapses, inaccurate observations, and subconscious biases.

            •  As someone (0+ / 0-)

              who thinks Zimmerman is guilty, but is worried he'll get off, I have to ask, how problematic is it, as far as reasonable doubt is concerned, that there was one stain that they said had two different people's DNA on it, but couldn't be analyzed because it was too small?

              Because my concern is that the defense could potentially use that to sow the seeds of doubt in the jury.  

              •  It depends on so many things: 1) location of stain (0+ / 0-)

                because if stain is located in area where Zimmerman admits he was when he pinned Martin down and pushed his arms apart then that explains it.

                2) If the size of the sample was so small then any expert testimony can easily explain that and get the jury to understand that a "spec" of "possible blood" that is so slight it is negligible when considering the amount of blood splatter that would take place in an attack such as Zimmerman claims.

                3) An expert can also explain that a sample with two or more "possibilities" that is very small, could be so old that it did not yield results.

                I am waiting for Zimmerman to explain how "his own" blood is on the gun.

          •  Question re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            There's a difference between evidence that proves a fact could be true and evidence that proves a fact is true.
            How much does the above blockquote factor into such things as the autopsy report & location of spent shell(s) etal at the crime scene?  How much weight is given to these reports?

            I am not LEA or attorney but have always assumed that certain things (ie autopsy reports/evidence at crime scene) could prove or disprove a fact.

            For an example, wouldn't the autopsy report coupled with the location of spent shell(s) be able to prove (or disprove) the position of both party's bodies during the actual shooting?

        •  Are we having two separate conversation here? (0+ / 0-)

          As I see it there's a science conversation and a justice conversation.

          Science is about objectivity and questioning. It's an unbeatably way to arrive at truth, but objectivity looks exactly like indifference, and indifference to injustice is wrong and will be called out as wrong.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:23:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Just as someone who has seen (11+ / 0-)

      the outcome of lots of fights, there is no way ZImmerman was punched in the face multiple times or had his bead banged into the ground. It looks to me like one light punch to the nose and a couple of very minor scrapes or lacerations.

      •  I have doubts about (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TeamSarah4Choice, Tonedevil

        a punch, because the blood on his face isn't smeared and there is no blood from GZ on Trayvon's hoody.
        I don't believe the blood was on his face when they were struggling.
        Here is a fight that pretty much had many of the elements of GZ's story. This is how blood gets distributed in a fight like that.

        •  Well, true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's why I suggested a "light" punch to the nose. Otherwise, yes, his wounds are inconsistent with a fight. Certainly not the kind of fight he has described.

          •  My argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is nog so much against the light punch, but the blood on GZ's face as seen in the photo, being there at the beginning of the struggle.
            I have difficult time believe they could've been struggling in close proximity for about a minute, without the blood smearing on GZ's face and getting on Trayvon's hoody.

            •  Also true (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, amsterdam

              The fight as Zimmerman describes it could not have happened given the evidence I have seen.

              Even a small fight with a few punches spreads blood around all over the place. The "grabbing at me punching me over and over, struggling to hold him down while he punched me" story simply doesn't fit the available evidence.

              On the other hand, the wounds in the first set of photos are consistent with a light punch to the nose and a minor scuffle.

              But even if Martin punched him in the nose, that does not give Zimmerman, who stalked him and accosted him, who initiated and escalated the conflict, the right to kill him.

              Unless you're a psychotic right-winger who thinks that shooting and killing people is the only possible solution to any and all conflict.

              •  I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I am not in the camp that thinks Trayvon wouldn't or shouldn't have punched GZ. The lack of blood and DNA from GZ on Trayvon, the fact that GZ had no defensive wounds, the fact Trayvon only had one tiny abrasion on his left ring finger and was right handed, the fact that none of the witnesses heard hitting sounds and that once the struggle had hit the ground, the fight appeared to be over, all that makes me believe there wasn't much of a fight at all.

                I think GZ had Trayvon in some kind of hold such as an arm lock. I think GZ realized he was detaining an innocent citizen, and he had probably brandished his weapon. He knew the police could be there any second, and with Trayvon alive, that would be the end of any dreams he may have had to become a police officer.

                The latest evidence dump by the prosecution, includes the records of a gym specialized in fight sports, where GZ had been training the year leading up to the incidence. GZ wrote on his application that he wanted to learn police techniques. It also includes a rejection letter for a job application GZ submitted, for a position as a police officer.
                I think the prosecution's case is heading in that direction.

    •  Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense. (9+ / 0-)

      Findings that DNA evidence does not support his story will not be neutral findings.

      It isn't necessary for prosecutors to disprove his story.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:29:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is legally incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li, dragonlady

        Look at a recent Florida case, Falwell v. Florida (pdf here):

        When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing  enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of  force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.  4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did  not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279 (explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force).
        Once the defendant makes a prima facie case -- a very easy standard to meet, see my other comment on the definition of "prima facie" -- the prosecution then has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self defense.
        •  Zimmerman has not made a Prma Facie case yet (12+ / 0-)

          and it is to be determined if he does.

          I notice your comments often deflect from facts and are often not supported by facts.

          •  No one has because the trial has not started. (0+ / 0-)

            But, based on the numerous trials I've been involved in, Zimmerman's statements to the police plus pictures of his injuries are almost certainly going to be enough to establish a prima faie case.  (Remember, prima facie means that you take the evidence as if it's not contradicted - so Z's statements to the police have to be taken at face value for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.  The prosecution can contest that testimony and ask the jury not to believe it, but that does not mean that Z failed to make a prima facie case)   It's a very low standard, pretty easy to meet. It does NOT mean that Zimmerman has proven that is what happened, and it does NOT mean that is what the jury will believe.  All it means is that it will be up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  

            •  Pictures do NOT prove Trayvon touched Zimmerman (6+ / 0-)

              As pointed out here:

              DNA evidence does not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon caused Zimmerman's injuries.

              Autopsy report does not support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon caused Zimmerman's injuries.

              There is evidence to support Trayvon caused those injuries and therefore there is no prima facie case

              Sorry, but the fact is, your dog aint gonna hunt because there is no physical evidence that supports GZ's claim that Trayvon caused Zimmerman's injuries.

              •  No they don't. But that's not what I'm saying. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, dragonlady, El Mito

                I'm saying there's enough to meet the very very very low standard of a prima facie case.

                Let me put it another way.  In a jury trial, having a prima facie case means that there's SOME evidence -- even a little bit -- to support your claim.  Even if the evidence on the other side contracts it, and even if the evidence on the other side is more convincing.  If there's SOME evidence -- a prima facie case -- the jury decides the issue.  If there's not ANY evidence in support of your claim, then the judge does not even let the jury decide the issue.  Here, if the defense didn't meet the very very very low standard of some evidence -- something -- in support of its claim, the jury will never even be asked to decide if Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  

                A prima facie case does not mean that Zimmerman PROVED that he acted in self-defense.  It just means that he has SOME evidence to support his contention, even if his evidence is weak and is contradicted.  

                •  Tell me EXACTLY what you keep claiming what "SOME" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, cybersaur, JoanMar

                  evidence is, in this case, that tells you prima facie has been met?

                  You keep saying "there's enough to meet the very very very low standard of a prima facie case."  So you should be able to tell me exactly what that evidence you are talking about is.

                  What is it?

                  What is the "evidence" you think exists that gives rise to a prima facie case.

                  •  Here is the evidence to support a (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Adam B, soros

                    prima facie case of self defense: (1) Zimmerman's taped statements to the police; (2) pictures showing Zimmerman suffered some injury.

                    Now, that evidence may be weak, in the opinion of the jury.  It may be contradicted by other evidence.  The jury may decide Zimmerman is a liar an was lying on that tape.  The fact that the jury may, or may not, BELIEVE  the evidence does not mean it's not evidence.  

                    Those two pieces of evidence mean that the jury at least has to answer the question:  Do you believe that Zimmerman shoot Martin in self-defense?  That's what a prima facie case means -- is there SOME evidence, even if it's only a little, even if the jury decides it's unreliable, even it is contradicted by other evidence, that could support your claim.  If there is nothing at all, then the jury never even addresses the question.  If there is some evidence, the jury then gets to address the question and to decide if it believes that evidence.  

                    If the jury sees that taped statement and those pictures (if they are admitted into evidence at trial), those are evidence.  The jury may choose to disbelieve that evidence.  Many, many trials have evidence that the jury does not believe in the end.  Almost every civil trial, for example, has testimony by the parties involved.  In a car accident, for example, you may have one driver testify he was going 10 miles an hour, where the skid marks show he was probably going 50.  That testimony, that he was going 10 miles an hour, is evidence, even if the jury ultimately doesn't buy a word of it.  

                    All I am discussing is whether there is a prima facie case, which means that there is SOME evidence which on its face could support self-defense.  That is a completely different question from whether the jury believes any of it.  

                    •  You did not answer my question (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      doroma, JoanMar

                      1) Zimmerman's many statements to police contradict Zimmerman. (so that's not going to be used as prima facie)

                      2) Pictures showing Zimmerman had cuts does not prove Trayvon Martin caused those injuries ( (so that's not going to be used as prima facie)

                      DNA results disprove any allegation from Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin caused Zimmerman's cuts.

                      Please answer the question, Tell me EXACTLY what you keep claiming what "SOME" evidence is, in this case, that tells you prima facie has been met?

                      You keep saying "there's enough to meet the very very very low standard of a prima facie case."  

                      So you should be able to tell me exactly what that evidence you are talking about is.

                      •  Here's where you are wrong. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dr Swig Mcjigger, Catesby, Kathy S
                        1) Zimmerman's many statements to police contradict Zimmerman. (so that's not going to be used as prima facie)
                        Yes, it is.  As would be Zimmerman's own statement if he testifies.  Evidence does not have to be uncontradicted to be considered sufficient to support a  prima facie case.  In fact, most evidence that supports a prima facie case IS contradicted.  That's what trials are all about.  Every plaintiff in a civil case has to put on a prima facie case to get to a jury -- if not, the defendant doesn't even have to put on a defense.   If I'm in an accident, and the speed limit is 40 mph, and I tell the office at the scene I was going 40, and then I get on the stand and say, wait, maybe it was 30, but the skid marks say I was going 90, I still have SOME evidence I was going 30.  My testimony is that evidence.  The fact that other evidence contradicts it does not mean it's not evidence.  And my testimony would establish a prima facie case that I was not speeding, which means that the jury gets to decide whether I was speeding or not -- which evidence they believe.   In fact, most juries would believe the expert testimony about the skidmarks, and decide the driver is lying. That doesn't mean that the driver did not make a prima facie case. If the driver didn't have ANY evidence of what his speed was (if he wasn't even willing to get on the stand and testify) then the question of his speed would not even get to the jury to decide.  A prima facie case means that there's enough to let the jury decide.  

                        I am NOT saying that the jury will BELIEVE Zimmerman's statements, or his testimony.  Just that  if the jury hears it, it is evidence.    Think of it this way. Zimmerman's statements, or his testimony, may be 1 point on his side.  The prosecution may have 10 points on their side.  But the fact that Zimmerman has that 1 point means that he's made a prima facie case, which means that the jury gets to at least answer the question of which side they believe.  A "prima facie" case does NOT mean you've proven that it happened, or that it likely happened. You've just presented some evidence (whether the jury believes it or not) that it could have happened.

                        2) Pictures showing Zimmerman had cuts does not prove Trayvon Martin caused those injuries ( (so that's not going to be used as prima facie)
                        Again, the wrong standard.  Look at that case I've quoted.  To establish a prima facie case -- one that at least gets to the jury for the jury to decide -- Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that Martin caused those injuries -- just that it's evidence that Martin "could have" caused those injuries.  If, for example, he had those injuries before that night, then Martin could not have caused those injuries.  But the fact that he didn't have those injuries, then he had an encounter with Martin, then he had those injuries, is evidence that Martin "could have" caused those injuries.  That's the standard for a prima facie case.  Like I said, the jury ultimately may decide that they do not believe Martin caused those injuries.  But the fact that (1) he didn't have those injuries; (2) he had an encounter with Martin; and (3) then he had those injuries, is enough to get the jury to answer the question -- do you believe Martin caused those injuries.  

                        Remember, a prima facie case does not mean you've proved that it happened.  It just means that you have some evidence that it could have happened the way you say.  That means that the jury gets to decide whether they believe your evidence or not.  

                    •  ive allowed you to post the stuff about the tape (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      doroma, amsterdam, JoanMar

                      1. rules of evidence - the tape without his testimony is like.y inadmissable

                      2. even if he testifies- unlikely- his statements will e impeached

                      3. merely testifying does not per se equal prima facie case of escalation

                      4. The photos are also insufficient even with the testimony - they must evidence escallation not just injury. Meaning escallation withing a procation context (which the prosecution can easily show provocation) means that TM threatend violence that would be greater than the threat than that which Z presented, That's not merely a jury question but one of what is prima facie evidence of escalation when it comes to a provoking defendant

                      The case i cited involved a situation where the defendant claimed he was being choked by the victim but the court held that provocation meant that he had not mere the thresthold to show escalation like he was trying to show and that instructions about this was not required

                      d I am not even at the factual case yet that will be put into evidence

                    •  So "evidence" doesn't mean what we think? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      There's a difference between the legal definition and the one we take for granted every day?

                      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                      by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:50:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  and remember what the defense (10+ / 0-)

                needs to present a prima facie case of

                Not just that Zimmerman was hit at some point (since Zimmerman being the aggressor cannot merely claim that he was injured) but that the injuries were a result of an escalation by the victim

                How does he show that without more evidence? He can't without testimony.

                •  I am not saying he has enough to (3+ / 0-)

                  prevail on the self-defense claim.  A prima facie case just requires some evidence that could support it.  

                  Zimmerman's taped statement to the police is evidence.  The jury can decide he's a liar.  The jury can decide that the other evidence contradicted what he said.  But it's still evidence.  

                  Zimmerman's taped statement to the police, plus the pictures, is SOME evidence, even if the jury thinks it's weak, or contradicted.  It's enough to let the jury at least answer the question, "do you think Z acted in self-defense."  

                  That's ALL a prima facie case is.  Is there some evidence on your side, even if that evidence is your own self-serving statement to the police, even if that evidence is contradicted by other evidence.  If there's SOMETHING on your side, the question goes to the jury.  

                  •  Even the cows can tape a program! (0+ / 0-)

                    Black Holes Suck.

                    by Pi Li on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 01:04:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  and Im saying that (4+ / 0-)

                    stop talking down to me

                    I'm a lawyer

                    you seem to be a lawyer in the same way Jeralyn over a talk left is a lawyer on these issues

                    she doesn't talk legal strategy, likelihoods or probabilities

                    she's a lawyer in the same way a law student thinks of law- as possibilities

                    i know from her biography she knows better, but it seems to ignore it here

                    I am trying get you to move away from that and talk probabilities because your argument- that self defense makes sense depends on it

                    im also trying to get you to discuss case law which says as a  matter of law he may not get the instructions for escallation. Do you respond? No.

                    the reason why the example I gave you matters is because implicit is the courts view that a prima facie case was not shown for the exception to apply

                    there are problem with it being admitted to prove the facts of what is being asserted

                    by the way

                    you aren't just arguing theres a prima facie case

                    you have been arguing throghout there's sufficient evidence for self defense

                    i can't have a discussion with someone who changes arguments mid stream to manipulate the conversation

                    •  I have never, never argued that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dogs are fuzzy

                      Zimmerman will prevail on his self-defense claim.  It all depends on what happens at trial.  

                      I have said I believe that there is a prima facie case, sufficient for the issue to go to a jury, and for the burden to shift to the prosecution under Florida law.  That's all I am saying.

                    •  Jeralyn is an asshole and so are most of her OPs (0+ / 0-)

                      Is it HRable to call out someone who isn't even a DK blogger? Fuck it. I visited TL to see if perhaps I was wrong about GZ and whether I was missing something. I thought I was on Yahoo or worse given the comments of OPs and by Jeralyn herself. After about a week, I quit.

              •  "Prove" is a different word (0+ / 0-)

                If I understand correctly, all that is required to make a "prima facie" case is to lie.

                Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:48:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My understanding (0+ / 0-)

                  from coffeetalk's explanation is that prima facie is basically just an acknowledgement that you have some kind of argument to make, no matter how valid or invalid it might be.

                  •  "prima facia" (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dirk McQuigley, cc

                    means "at first sight".

                    It does not mean ... "What one person says".

                    So when a Judge makes a ruling it will necessarily include more than simple exculpatory statements by Zimmerman, because there is more "first sight" evidence than that.

                    There is clear evidence of escalation by GZ, because he left his vehicle, when told that it was not necessary. He ended up in the same place as TM, because we know he did, therefore he must have followed him.

                    There is no reasonable argument that GZ can make that this is self-defense. He will try, and he will hope that the Jury believe it, and in Flz. ... they might.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    Who is twigg?

                    by twigg on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:10:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Coffeetalk, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doroma, Tonedevil, mrblifil

              it appears your saying that a prima facie clam would in some way indirectly transfer the public trust to Zimmerman's claim as if he has received some of the special rights of law officers by way of his testimony to them.

              Otherwise, because the officers believed his story, Zimmerman's claims should supersede the capabilities of cold, hard mathematics and science.

              Moreover, it seems that you basically claiming that public trust plus pictures trumps scientific evidence and circumstantial evidence involving Zimmerman's credibility.

              However, what you need to understand is this: Science rules over prejudices and biases in the court room. Also, do not rule out this being considered a hate crime if the State does not do it job in convicting Zimmerman.

              •  What I am saying has nothing to do with (0+ / 0-)

                "the public trust."

                Let me put it this way.  Even if the police officers didn't believe a word Zimmerman said when they interviewed him after the shooting, his statement would still be SOME evidence, and would likely be enough to put the issue to the jury to decide.  

                Otherwise, because the officers believed his story, Zimmerman's claims should supersede the capabilities of cold, hard mathematics and science.
                You misunderstand what I am saying.  I'm saying he has made a prima facie case, which means that he has SOME evidence, however scant, to support his claim.  Even if the jury doesn't believe any of it in the end, having a prima facie case means there's something in his column -- enough for the jury to decide who's telling the truth.  His statement to the police, along with the pictures, is a prima facie case -- which means there's enough there to even ask the jury the question: "do you think he acted in self-defense?" In the end, the jury can completely reject all of the evidence in Zimmerman's column.
                •  you keep mentioning the tapes (4+ / 0-)

                  you dod realize that its likely they are inadmissable right?

                  •  Not necessarily if the prosecution offers them (0+ / 0-)

                    I assume that the prosecution will offer Z's statements, because much of their evidence against him will come out of his own mouth.  They can't pick and choose the snippets they want; if they want to use his statements to the police as evidence of his guilt (and as people here recognize, much of the evidence against Z comes from his own statements and the inconsistencies among those statements) then the jury is likely going to hear those statements in context -- i.e., Z's story of what happened.  

                    The downside is that, in order to show Z's inconsistencies, and show Z's actions that night, that will be enough to establish a prima facie case of self-defense.  

                    If the prosecution closes its case without offering any of Zimmerman's statements to the police, then Zimmerman will almost surely have to  testify.

                    •  you keep treating people like they are stupid (5+ / 0-)

                      and that's part of the conversation that makes the case ascutally easier for the prosectuion - zimmerman thinks the same way.

                      they can and will pick and choose tbhe evidence they put on chief bcause they know if its raised in rebuttal as the defense case in chief they can then attack it

                      im not even a litigator, but as lawyer we are all taught how think in terms of strategy

                      I dont  understand your arguments from that angle unless you assuume the prosecution is stupid

            •  Injuries are not evidence of self-defense (4+ / 0-)

              Self-defense implies that you were the victim of an attack someone else started, but being injured doesn't mean that happened. You can start a fight and come out with the worst of it.

        •  you assume facts not in evidence (6+ / 0-)

          specifically, the ones that would establish the need for prosecutors to disprove Zimmerman's story, ones that would put any portion of my comment into dispute.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:07:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think he or she undrstands (11+ / 0-)

            what prima facie case means

            There is FL case law on the issue. Essentially there was a case in which the defense for a case after the prosecution put on its case in chief said "okay we can now raise self defense" because the prima facie case was made by prosection

            The appellate court said "hold on where did they  make the prima facie case?"

            The defense couldn't show it. So they lost the appeal

            Coffee's argument relies heavily on Zimmerman's testimony but as he claims above he doesn't need the testimoy although he also claims that in fact there may not be corraborating evidence just no evidence that contradicts

            Its a game of moving the balla nd legal sophistry

            The problem here is that its b.s.

            Where's the prima facie case?

            he can't tell you, but its there and easy.

            •  Here the defense will say (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li, dragonlady, soros, Dr Swig Mcjigger

              (1) Zimmerman's statements to the police where he told them his story; and (2) pictures of Zimmerman taken after he shot Martin.  

              If those come in during the prosecution's case (as they almost certainly will), that's a "prima facie" case for self-defense, and the prosecution has the burden of proving it was NOT self-defense.  If not, the defense just has to introduce those in its case to make a prima facie case, and shift the burden.

              I've been a lawyer for well, well over 20 years.  I understand what a prima facie case is, and I've linked to some definitions.

              Basically, if there's no prima facie case, then the jury doesn't even get ASKED if they think Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  If there's no prima facie case, the issue doesn't even go to the jury.  A prima facie case just means that there's some evidence in the record -- enough so that the jury has to decide the issue.  It's a very low standard to meet.   If there's enough evidence for the jury to be ASKED the question of whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense, there's a prima facie case.  

            •  "Relies heavily" -- am I understanding right? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Checking my reading comprehension, doesn't coffeetalk's argument rely, not on Zimmerman's testimony being true or even likely to be true, but simply on the fact that it exists?

              Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

              by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:54:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It doesn't exist as part of trial (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TeamSarah4Choice, bruh1

                unless the prosecution introduces it or if Zimmerman gets on the stand.
                The prosecution won't introduce the statements. They don't need it for their case and they will not make Zimmerman's case for him.
                If Zimmerman gets on the stand, he will be impeached because of all the contradictory statements he has made.

                •  he has to deal with both the statements (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, amsterdam

                  and making what he say fit the physical evidence

                  which is difficult to do given the nature of that evidence doesn't corraborate claims of escallationb y the defendant

                  it wouldn't be a cake walk even without his prior statements but with it, I don't see how he comes out as anything other than aliar on the stand

        •  Not clear that he has made that case (6+ / 0-)

          Men get into fights all the time.    If one punch justifies a shooting then we truly live in a jungle.   If punching a guy who attacks you in the dark allows the attacker to shoot you, then justice has no meaning.

           Ultimately it is up to the jury to decide whether shooting a guy who is struggling to escape is reasonable.   ( It is clear from what he told the guy on scene that Zimmerman was trying to restrain Martin.)

          •  I agree there may be a question of whether (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, Dr Swig Mcjigger

            Zimmerman can prove self-defense if the burden were on him to prove it.  I completely agree that we don't know what the jury will decide, and what they decide is going to be based on what evidence they hear.  

            All I'm saying is that I think that there's enough to meet the very very low standard of a prima facie case, NOT that Zimmerman can PROVE that he acted in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, or even that he can prove that it's more likely than not that he acted in self-defense.  A "prima facie" case is a much, much lower standard to meet.  

            •  the burden on him is to demonstrate (8+ / 0-)

              a prima facie case of escalation

              What you think is irrelevant to what the case law says on that issue

              The mere injuries are not enough in context to do that

              Having provoked, which they concede even without saying it, the emere fact he was injured doesn't demonstrate escallation

              That's the prima facie case he must show or he doesn't get those instructions

            •  The burden of "affirmative self defense" is on GZ (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              •  Not once there's some evidence (0+ / 0-)

                -- even if that evidence is contradicted, even if there's other evidence to contradict it -- that shows that it "could have" been self-defense.  Read that case I linked to and quoted.  

                If there's some evidence -- like Zimmerman's police statement, and/or his testimony, and/or his injuries, that support the idea that it "could have" been self defense (even if, ultimately, the jury doesn't believe it, or the prosecution presents evidence to contradict it), then the burden shifts to the prosecution.  That's what that case, Falwell v. Florida, and the cases cited in that case, clearly say.  

                •  Right -- what I'm arguing is that even his story (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  might not equate to "self defense."   If his story were "I saw a big scary black kid so I shot him because I fear big scary black kids" even if true, that would not meet the low burden.    The mere fact that he has a claim of self defense is not enough, what he claims has to meet the definitions codified in Fla. state law.

                  "The guy jumped me and hit me, so I shot him" also doesn't equate to self defense, at least in this context since he already acknowledged that he was chasing a "kid" who he knew was unarmed and he was fully alert and looking for a confrontation, not that he was suddenly surprised and in fear of his life.   His own words after the shooting indicated a desire to detain Martin, not a fear of him.

                   "The guy was suffocating me so I broke away and shot him" doesn't quite get there IMO since he did manage to break away.    "I was afraid that he would grab my gun" is insane, but that was one of his early statements to the press.    The only way to get there is to have a sequence of events that would make a reasonable person fear for their life, and given that Zimmerman is an experienced street fighter (bar bouncer fired for over-aggressive behavior) it is a high bar when shooting an unarmed person.

                  He has an interesting needle to thread, it will be interesting to see how the prosecution and defense go about it.  

    •  Reduced to numbo, jumbo legalese. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dancun74, doroma, Tonedevil, Check077, devis1

      Do you see now why people hate some lawyers?
      Beyond sickening.

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:46:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Coffeetalk (8+ / 0-)

      I don't need a forensic expert to tell me what my hands and cuffs would look like, after I repeatedly would've touched a bloody face. I think we all have had some experience with blood smears caused by the tiniest of cuts.

    •  Have you ever been in a fight? (6+ / 0-)

      If you had, you'd know that punching somebody repeatedly leaves marks on your hands. If that somebody bleeds, the blood gets on your hands and sleeves. If you are grappling with somebody, their DNA gets on your hands and sleeves.

      That's the nature of human contact. Substances transfer from one person to the other. The more violent the contact, the more transfer occurs.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:08:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I completely understand what you believe (0+ / 0-)

        should be the evidence.  

        But judges don't let juries hear non-experts testify to things like that.  There needs to be someone who has the science to back up his/her opinion.  And juries are instructed on things like that as well.

        •  Not what I believe. (8+ / 0-)

          What I know. I grew up in public housing in Detroit. I have been in fights. My brothers and friends were in street gangs and motorcycle gangs. They were in lots and lots of fights.

          I speak from experience, based upon participating in, witnessing, and seeing the aftereffects of at least a thousand fights.

          The time my brother broke his hand punching a guy in the face because the guy had a brick wall behind him that reversed the force of the punch back to my brother.

          The time my biker gang brother punched through a car window to pull out a guy trying to hide from him. I saw the cuts and bruising on my brother's hand.

          The times I fought in a gym while trying to go legit instead of staying in a life centered on brawling in the street.

          Your opinion is just that: an opinion. Juries are instructed on things like that. Such as the fact that a violent fight lasting several minutes and allegedly involving dozens of punches leaves physical evidence on both parties to the fight.

          A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

          by edg on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 12:01:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Experience participating in fights (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            El Mito

            is not enough to qualify you as an expert in forensics.  

            We are talking about two different things.  You are talking about what you think happened based on your interpretation of the evidence.  

            I am talking about the standard that will apply in Court, with the jury.  

            •  actually this is incorrect (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              experts need not need professional training

              experience unless florida law says something different can typically be a substitute

              that being said i doubt the prosecution will not have expert witness

              •  Again, misstate my point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emelyn, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                Evidence that you participate in fights is not going to qualify you as an expert in forensics.  

                What the prosecution would need to make the arguments in the diary is an expert in forensics.  

                •  i undrestood your point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  its still false

                  the kinds of injuries one sees can either be because oe studied in school (which the prosecution will likley use because it easier) or it can be experience of seeing enough fights

                  a boxer after experience is not a medical doctor but he's going to know what force causes what type of injury bc he gets paid to know how to take out his opponent

                  the person isn't saying they are going to be called as expert. they are saying their experience allows them to have expert views of the wounds

                  there's nothing wrong with that unless you don't like the conclusion i suppose

          •  "Juries are instructed on things like that." (0+ / 0-)

            I believe the point was that the instruction needs, legally, to come from someone with expert credentials? Even though some jurors will (like you) already know?

            Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

            by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:01:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Plus the hitter's hands suffer trauma too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam, AlyoshaKaramazov

        When fist slams into face, it's like an auto collision. Both cars will sustain damage, and both hand and face sustain damage too. That's why boxers wear gloves. It's to protect their hands, not to protect their opponent's face.

    •  You don't think lack of stains impeaches Z? (7+ / 0-)

      You can carry that argument too far.   There is allegedly a struggle on muddy ground and the guy's clothing is unmarked?   You don't need an expert opinion to say that if a guy is thrown into the mud, his clothes will get muddy.   It doesn't work to say "oh, the lack of mud just doesn't support his story, but it doesn't dispute it."   Of course it disputes the story.  

      Trials are based on this sort of thing all the time.    For example, Jodi Arias claimed that she got Travis's gun from the top shelf of his closet, which is over 8' high.    When that was disputed, she said that she stood on the bottom shelf.   The fact that the picture of the crime scene shows a completely undisturbed closet with lightweight & tippy shelving disputes her story -- she could not have stood on that shelf without breaking it.    Your argument would be that "well, a shoeprint would confirm her story, but whether the lack of disturbance disputes her version is a different story."    That is not how it works.

      Now Z could argue that he wasn't wearing the jacket at the time, and I suppose that he will -- because otherwise he is in deep doo-doo.   If you are going to argue self defense you have to be precise, accurate and honest or else the jury will discount everything that you say.   You (the defendant) have the strongest possible motive to lie.

    •  It's good you're playing the Devil's Advocate... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dancun74, Tonedevil, Matt Z

      and in doing so for Zimmerman you quite possibly could be advocating for a literal devil. LOL!

      •  Quote from A Man For All Seasons (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlyoshaKaramazov, hayden

        William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
        Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
        William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
        Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:03:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the jurors will each decide if evidence (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dancun74, amsterdam, HappyinNM corroborative or not.

      At this point, just looking at these reports, it would not be hard to suggest a reasonable person might find this information inconsistent with the whole of Zimmerman's statement.

      Given that the jury will receive instructions to consider all of the evidence-which we do not know-it really doesn't do us any good to discuss whether or not this particular information meets the standard or not.

      At best, I don't think one needs to be an expert to suggest that this information might not be the most helpful the defense's case.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:49:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm not so sure about the DNA under the (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, Tonedevil, kyril, Matt Z, worldlotus

      finger nails bit, but you should expect to find mr. Zimmerman's DNA on the insides of mr. martin's fingers, and his palms if, as mr. Zimmerman claims, mr. martin grabbed him by the sides of his head, and was bashing it on the concrete sidewalk. we shall see what the complete report says.

      one thing that i'm a tad confused about: in his initial interview with the police, mr. Zimmerman claimed that mr. martin attacked him from behind, after mr. Zimmerman had turned and started walking back to his vehicle. if that's the case, mr. Zimmerman should have been the one face down. presumably with mr. martin straddling his back, and bashing his face into the concrete. instead, we get mr. Zimmerman on mr. martin's back, claiming mr. martin is still hitting him with his hands. how could that be physically possible?

      try lying on your chest, and seeing how far behind you you can get your arms. see if you can hit anyone straddling your back. i'm betting you can't.

      •  Not only that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But 45ft south of where GZ claimed Trayvon punched him and he fell on the ground.

        Just watch him in the video reenactment, when he realizes his error and instead of stumbling backwards, he stumbles forward. That still only got him halfway between the spot he claimed he was attacked and the spot where Trayvon's body was found.

    •  Z's story not credible anyway (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Zimmerman claimed he had no idea he actually "shot" Trayvon"

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 01:58:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's undisputed that he killed Trayvon. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Self defense argument is just an effort to sow seeds of reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to commit murder.  My problem with your argument is that guilt in this case is not on whether you can disprove self defense beyond reasonable doubt, but whether the self-defense argument is credible enough to create reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of murder.  So i feel your application of what constitutes reasonable doubt in this case is reversed.  It's not the job of the defense attorneys to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself, but to question the credibility of the defense.  If his assertion of self-defense isn't credible enough, it is likely the jury will find that there will be no doubt that he is guilty.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

      by ecostar on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:10:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A qualified witness to say something about how (0+ / 0-)

      you can punch someone in the nose 20 or 25 times and slam their head into the ground and not have any evidence on your hands?

      I am no expert so I guess it is just opinion that there would be some skin cells or blood on the hands of the person who threw those 20 or 25 punches and slammed a head into the ground.

      So it is your opinion that

      if the "inconclusive" sample on Martin's sleeve had been enough to be conclusive and had been Zimmerman's, that would support Zimmerman's story.
      evidently on the assumption that Martin punched Zimmerman 20 or 25 times with his arm rather than using a fist.
      •  Blood splatter is why none of Zimmerman's DNA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        on the cuff/sleeve of Martin's hoodie is important.

        When a person strikes someone in the nose 25-30 times, as is Zimmerman's claim, then the blood from his nose will splatter and therefore, no blood on the cuff/sleeve of Trayvon's hoodie suggests Trayvon did not strike Zimmerman in the nose to 25-30 times.

    •  Woah there. (0+ / 0-)

      Trial hasn't begun.  No evidence has been presented and the manner of presentation, the claims made by the presenting side's "experts" haven't been made.

      The DNA evidence does not support Zimmerman's story, true.
      Nuh-unhhhhhhh.   See above.

      Your entire post -- the post, not your person -- is the best argument for not watching court TV or F(censored)cks Noise, either one.

      Have a nice week in the real world.

      Mr. Chambers! Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man", it's... it's a cookbook!

      by Adelante on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:25:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dispute Which Version? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's the big problem for Zimmerman. He gave multiple versions of the events. No doubt Zimmerman's Council will try to write this off as him being confused and in shock after the events. Of course this opens the door to the possibility that Zimmerman actually doesn't really recall exactly went on which will give the forensic evidence more weight.

      Assuming the Prosecutors do their job in jury selection, the only chance Zimmerman has to gain their sympathy and convince them he acted in self defense. With his multiple contradictory versions of events, his only real chance will be to take the stand and appear very sympathetic and convincing. Of course that leaves him open to cross-examination which he is unlikely to fair very well, considering how readily he changed his story under the slightest prodding during questioning by the police.

  •  help me restrain this guy (4+ / 0-)

    if he said that to a witness, it's consistent with
    his primary story.

    does one of the witnesses back this up?

    •  Have you seen the defense's 2nd supplemental (0+ / 0-)

      discovery? GZ's jacket has scrapes all over it. And Witness 6 saw George on his back.

      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

      by HairyTrueMan on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 08:41:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Zimmerman's jacket does not have scrapes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus, amsterdam

        on it in his 2nd supplemental.

        It has cutouts from where pieces were cut out to evaluate but those "cutouts" are not "scrapes."

        Here's Zimmerman's 2nd supplemental of the back of his jacket:

         photo zimmerman2ndsupplementalbackjacket2_zps94967cf3.jpg

        Here is another view of Zimmerman's 2nd Supplemental back of his jacket.

         photo zimmerman2ndsupplementalbackjacket_zpsa6b3211d.jpg

        •  Of course you didn't address the eye witness. (0+ / 0-)

          Actually I believe there was a second witness who places the white or hispanic guy with a red jacket on his back. And you didn't address the part where police said the back of Zimmerman's jacket was wet. You do realize that these people are going to testify, don't you?

          Interesting that you didn't address the person I responded to who wrote:

          Hard to believe he was on his back at all.
          It's actually pretty easy to believe considering there are two witnesses who saw GZ on his back and police officers who said the back of his jacket was wet. What's hard is to prove he wasn't on his back. I sure hope that the prosecution isn't relying on the severity of the scrapes on GZ's jacket to counter these witnesses.

          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

          by HairyTrueMan on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:39:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Incidentally... (0+ / 0-)

          Did you see the pictures of TM's pants in the same supplemental discovery? I wonder how he got those grass stains on his knees...

          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

          by HairyTrueMan on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:40:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  How did he do that? (41+ / 0-)
    ZIMMERMAN: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands...
    I'm having a hard time visualizing how a person lying on the ground, face down, with somebody sitting on top of him, can hit that person in the face.
  •  I'm not a scientist. So help me. (8+ / 0-)
    In order for Trayvon Martin to grab Zimmerman's bald head tight enough to slam his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times, some of Zimmerman's DNA would have gotten underneath Trayvon Martin's fingernails.
    That said, if Trayvon had been punching Zimmerman in the nose 25 to 30 times, as Zimmerman claims, then some of Zimmerman's blood would be all over the cuff/sleeve of Trayvon Martins hoodie.  
    How do we know for sure that's true, esp. the first one?
    •  Only in magic world would DNA escape the (9+ / 0-)

      fingernails of one who is "punching you several times and smashing your head 30 times on the ground and beating you up MMA style " only in magic world.

    •  Scientists say DNA can determine if an assault (5+ / 0-)

      took place by the "accused" and Zimmerman is "accusing" Martin

      There have been 307 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

      • The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 240 exonerations.

      • 18 of the 307 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

      • The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,135.

      • The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

      Races of the 307 exonerees:

      190 African Americans
      89 Caucasians
      21 Latinos
      2 Asian American
      5 whose race is unknown

      • The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 149 of the DNA exoneration cases.

      • Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

      • In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

      • 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

      • An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.

      • The Innocence Project was involved in 171 of the 307 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.

      • 29 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit.

      Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

      These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends. Many wrongful convictions overturned with DNA testing involve multiple causes.

      Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.

      Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct

    •  Forget the fingernails. That's a red herring. (8+ / 0-)

      There would only be DNA under the fingernails if Martin scratched Zimmerman. With the fight described by Zimmerman, there would be damage to Martin's hands and Zimmerman's blood and skin cells would be on Martin's hands and clothing. It would be impossible to have a violent fight such as the one described by Zimmerman without significant evidence of it on Martin.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:19:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I vaguely agree with you here. (6+ / 0-)

      I can easily see grabbing someone tightly without getting 'DNA' under your fingernails.  The only reason I would expect to find DNA under the nails is if you'd either either A) been scratching them, or B) they were bleeding enough that a drop hit the edge of your fingernail.

      But taken as a whole, it does seem that Zimmerman's account of the 'struggle' doesn't seem to match the photographic evidence of clothing and wounds.  I would have been curious to have seen a photograph of the concrete where Zimmerman's head was supposedly smashed multiple times, enough to leave it bleeding, to see what sort of blood pattern was left there.  If that occurred, there should be blood and lots of skin on the concrete to be blacklighted.  

      If the bleeding on Zimmerman's head was from being repeatedly smashed against a sidewalk, I would have expected 'splash' centered around the point of impact before blood started running elsewhere.  Instead, it looks like bleeding started, then had time to be pulled towards the lower front of his head by gravity before any sort of smearing occurred, more like it was inflicted while he was vertical, not horizontal and face up.

      •  The police bungled that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Sychotic1, a2nite

        They apparently took no record or samples from the sidewalk, not even the next day. They also didn't document Zimmerman's injuries beyond photographing them and taking the EMT's report at face value.

      •  We don't know how much evidence-gathering (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, a2nite

        occurred after Zimmerman was released from custody the night of the murder. Also, it was raining that night, probably causing much evidence to be lost.

        •  Rain probably couldn't wash blood away (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You've read about crime scenes where the suspect washed the floors down with a hose and used bleach and scrubbed thoroughly, and they still manage to find evidence of blood.

          I'll bet a light rain on the concrete wouldn't have made the blood undetectable, but I could be wrong.

      •  you always expect the blood to show up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indie17, amsterdam

        on the victim in ultiple places given that he was bleeding as he was supposedly being hit

        it doesn't need to have been un his nails, but no where? That's beyond not credible

      •  Great points on the head bleeding but I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        that a person "can easily see grabbing someone tightly without getting 'DNA' under your fingernails" especially given the fact that Zimmerman is claiming Martin grabbed his bald head so tightly that after slamming his head: up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down, (over a dozen times) Trayvon's hands would have been moving up and down and, each time the head hit the sidewalk, the force of the head hitting the sidewalk would have caused Trayvon to grab the head tighter after each slam and in that scenario I find it impossible to avoid getting Zimmerman's DNA under Trayvon's fingernails.

        •  I dunno, try grabbing your own head a minute. (0+ / 0-)

          In what would be the most natural position for me if I was holding mine as firmly as I can, my fingernails aren't even near the scalp.  My palms are flat to my skull, and even when I grip with my fingertips, my nails are still pointing away tangentially.  In order for my nails to actually be in contact with my skull, I have to curl my fingers in enough that the upper part of my palm, nearest the fingers, is nowhere near my skull, which makes for a lousy grip.  An adult's skull is just too big to grip with the fingers curled in like that unless you've got enormous basketball player hands, I'd think.

          •  How are you grabbing AND slamming up and down over (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, AlyoshaKaramazov

            a dozen times without getting your nails embedded somewhere in the scalp?

            How are you grabbing your head AND slamming up and down hitting a hard surface with force that would cause you to lose your grip unless you embed your fingers somewhere into the scalp?

            Zimmerman did not claim Trayvon pushed his head up and down, Zimmerman claims Trayvon grabbed his head tight enough to overcome the force of the sidewalk, slamming it and not losing his grip.

            I can grab my head and move it side to side with tips of my fingers

            I cannot grab my head with enough tension to push my head into a concrete sidewalk and maintain grip control of the head without embedding my nails somewhere into the scalp, can you?

              •  Your comment makes no sense. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                doroma, AlyoshaKaramazov
              •  Not a scientist or lawyer, but... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I think you may be misunderstanding both DNA and fighting. In a fight, any fight, but especially one involving over 2 dozen punches, the amount of DNA exchanged is tremendous, most you are entirely unaware of. So when repeatedly slamming someone's head into the ground, you're not going for "best grip", or even efficiency, you're simply acting. Not in any way saying this is a solid legal argument, just telling you as the shortest kid in class for 12 years, I know what the other guy looks like after he kicks the shit outta you and it's a lot of you. All over his shirt and hands and maybe if you were lucky, his face because you got a fist covered in your own blood to connect before it got boring for him. The idea that TM  could beat GZ to the point the GZ (not a doctor) says he did, is laughable.

            •  Yes I can. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Adam B, Dr Swig Mcjigger

              But then I have no choice, because I bite my nails, and they're not long enough to embed in anything.   I would never rely on using my nails for any serious application of force anyway, even if they were long - that's just asking to rip your nails off.

              And, actually, come to think of it, I've actually done what you're suggesting Zimmerman did - in a fight in college, I did actually pound my opponent's head on the floor repeatedly, with force.  And didn't use my nails.  (I'm not proud of that, but it did happen - I also slammed a door on the poor guy's arm during the fight, breaking his watch iirc.  Chad, if you're out there, I apologize again, as I did after the fight.)

              •  Biting nails does NOT prevent embedding DNA under (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                the nail.

                •  Not what I meant. (0+ / 0-)

                  What I was saying was that my nails are too short to actually contact the skull as noted in my first comment, if I am gripping it in any way that gives me the leverage I would need to actually move it, especially against opposition by a living foe.

                  Seriously, just consider the lever arms.  Your finger muscles are short and relatively weak.  If you want to move any object with force, you do not grab it with your fingertips - you cup it with your palms and the sides of the fingers, so that the object has the full strength of your biceps and triceps transmitted to it.  You don't pick up and toss large rocks with your fingertips.  And for people with short fingernails to 'dig them in' to a scalp, that's exactly what you'd have to do - lift the palm of the hand away from scalp to allow the fingers to curl in so the nails were pointed at the scalp.

                  So I'd simply never have my fingernails near enough to the scalp to scrape up any DNA while doing that pounding.

                  •  As a biochemical engineer I disagree with you. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Yes, your arms are "levers" but if you are 'grabbing' a sphere with your fingers/palms to slam it into a force (sidewalk) then you "dig" into the sphere so you don't lose your grip.

                    You seem to be confusing a "lever" with the part that "grips"

                    If you were to "cup" a head that is resisting movement and try slam it into the sidewalk, you would lose your grip and would not be able to slam it in the sidewalk at all.

                    If you grip the head using your fingers, palm and thumb, your fingernails will get DNA from that head embedded into them and each time you slam the head on the sidewalk, more DNA will get embedded.

                    Bottom line: In order to maintain the grip on a resisting head, your fingers, palms and thumbs will grip the head and more and more DNA from the head will get embedded under your fingernails every time the head hits the sidewalk (due to the force from hitting the non-giving sidewalk)

                    •  Yes, the PADS of my fingers are helping grip (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Adam B

                      The object.  Not my fingers.

                      As a person who has actually DONE what we're talking about, the only thing I suggest is that you get ahold of some firm, heavy, resistant object and actually do it yourself.

                      Do your own experiment, then get back to me on whether you were able to dig your fingernails in without simply losing hold after a single hard bounce or two.

                      Or find a single case in which what you suggest is the 'bottom line' is documented.

                      •  Typo there - sub fingernails for fingers in line 1 (0+ / 0-)

                        Should be 'not my fingernails'.

                        I don't know what being a 'biochemical engineer' has to do with the simple mechanics of holding an object, btw, or moving it around with force.  Heck, give me examples of anything of more than a few inches diameter you personally have 'dug your fingernails into' while applying violent force to it while trying to maintain a grip on it.  

    •  How do we know that for sure? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Are yous seriously asking this question?

      If someone is BLEEDING and you are punching them IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE BLEEDING, you are going to tend get blood on your hands.

      And "for sure" is not the litmus here. It's, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

      Is there cause for "reasonable doubt" that he could miraculously not picked up a drop of blood? No. The standard is met.  

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 09:28:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This could use a fisking (5+ / 0-)

    Former prosecutor (now defense atty) writing in the Phila Inq today in favor of acquittal:

    Let's start with the tape of Zimmerman's 911 call to police. Unlike the deceptively spliced and edited snippets broadcast on television news, the full, undoctored tape proves that, at the time he was supposedly hunting down his intended victim, Zimmerman was asking 911 to send a police officer to his location to investigate Martin's suspicious behavior. If Zimmerman was intending murder, why would he first alert the police and invite them to the scene of the crime?

    Similarly, Zimmerman can be heard on the full tape telling the 911 operator that Martin was approaching him. This unscripted, real-time declaration contradicts the media gospel that Zimmerman stalked a retreating and inoffensive Martin.

  •  Thanks for the diary. Fingers crossed that TM (7+ / 0-)

    will get the justice they deserve.

  •  Just an EMS point (25+ / 0-)

    I'm a New York State Paramedic. Unless Florida EMS rules are very different (and I'm pretty sure they are not) EMS personnel do not use Peroxide to clean wounds. They use either sterile water for surface wounds or sterile saline for deeper lacerations, IF there is an indication for cleaning a wound at all. Often there isn't.

    EMS services do not carry peroxide, bacitracin or any other disinfectant or wound treatment medication for one very good reason: They are transporting patients to a hospital which may need to suture, debride, or otherwise treat a wound. The presence of medication on or in the wound interferes with that process.

    The only time we apply something other than a simple bandage or pressure bandage to a wound is when there is arterial bleeding in which case we may use Quick Clot.

    With the type of non-serious, not actively bleeding wounds Zimmerman appears to have, it is unlikely that any dressing would be used at all. Nor would the wounds be cleaned since cleaning can disturb clots and lead to a return to active bleeding.

    They might have used a moist 4x4 to clean his lips and given him an ice pack for his nose, but that's really all.

    •  about the broken nose (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Captain - thank you for sharing your expertise here.

      Would you tell someone you think their nose may be broken even though you are not an MD or qualified to make that diagnosis without an x-ray or whatever?   If so, would you necessarily include in the report your opinion that the nose was broken or just report your exact measurements and observations?

      I don't understand all the acronyms and terms in the report below.  

      Here is the text of the EMS report by Michael Brandy EMT-Paramedic.  (PDF - see p. 182)

      ASSESSMENT: 19:41
      Patient conscious.
      Breathing Quantity Adult Normal 12 - 20
      No External Hemorrhage Noted; Mucous Membrane Normal
      Central Body color Normal
      Extremities Normal
      WlTHIN NORMAL LIMITS (Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle use, Chest Rise, Radial pulse, Skin Temp, Skin Moisture, Skin Turgor, Cap Refill, Pupil Size and Reaction) BRANDY, MICHAEL EMT-Paramedic
      ALS Assessment Done to rule out NOC at Dispatch.
      HEAD - Laceration Hemorrhage (1 inch) venous}:Occipital,
      Abrasion: Forehead. Pain Tenderness Hemorrhage (capillary}:Nose.
      ***Pt #1
      R38 and E38 responds for a GSW. O/S 28 y/o male pt is found sitting up in the back of a police car, handcuffed, in custody of SPD. Pt states he was assaulted and his head was struck on the pavement.
      Pt's GCS=15 and he's warm/dry with normal skin color. Pt has abrasions to his forehead, + bleeding/tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. Pt also denies LOC, neck/back pain, and he has + PMS x 4 with - paresthesia.
      Pt's wounds are cleaned and SPD advises they will xport pt. Pt is left in custody of SPD.
      Do you have any other insights to share based on this?
      •  In general (7+ / 0-)

        Medics and EMT's don't diagnose. We do what's called a vectored medical assessment (basically a differential diagnosis that doesn't step on doctor's toes) that relies on signs and symptoms that can be acquired on scene or in transport without resorting to laboratory tests. Basically, we have an EKG, our eyes and ears, and what the patient and others can report.

        This PCR (Patient Care Report) seems to describe a very minor set of injuries to an otherwise normal patient. Note that all listed findings seem to be within normal limits. The injuries described seem to be consistent with the photos. GCS=15 means he has not suffered any loss of mental function due to trauma (GCS=15 is as good as you can get: Normal). PMSx4 means he has full response in all four limbs in terms of Pulse, Motor, and Reflexes. Paresthesia is mild numbness or "pins and needles." A common symptom of stress or mild emotional shock.

        The fact that the police were used to transport the patent means that the wounds were minor enough that the patient could refuse transport to the hospital. In NY only the patient can refuse transport, the police cannot order it. I don't know how they work it in Florida, but denying transport to a possibly injured patient opens them up for all sorts of legal trouble if the patient is found to have serious injuries later. If any wounds had been dangerous or questionable, they would have transported via ambulance to a local hospital with police escort.

        I can see now why they chose to clean the wounds at the scene, since the patient was not going to a hospital for treatment. I do find it odd that they used peroxide, we don't even carry that here in NY, but it's not impossible that they do in Florida. Every state and every region in every state can set its own EMS protocols. With the minor wounds as described, the danger of re-starting active bleeding was slight and not dangerous in any case.

        Note that I do question their not transporting to hospital because the patient claims his head was struck multiple times both with fists and against the pavement. That would mean to me that they need a head CT or MRI to rule out internal bleeding which can take hours or days to manifest symptomatically.

        Either they run things in Florida very differently than they do in NY, or the medic at the scene was so certain ZImmerman was un-injured that he let it go. As I noted in another post in this thread, the photos look like a minor wound to the nose that required an ice pack and a few other very minor bleeds (the fact that the swelling to the nose was almost entirely reduced 45 minutes later is significant). There is no evidence that he was in any way severely beaten or struck hard multiple times. He might have been punched once in the nose and had a scuffle (I have seen the results of dozens of real fights, his wounds are not in any way similar). But, as I say, I don't diagnose: That's up to a doctor. That he was not transported to hospital speaks volumes.

        •  Great comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B

          Thanks for the reply and for interpreting the report.  

          You have a very good point about not making a diagnosis at the scene.  So the fact that a broken nose is not listed in the EMS report does not mean that he didn't have one or that the EMTs on the scene couldn't make their own educated opinions as to whether it was broken or not.  If they were called to the stand, the jury would have to assess the reliability of their testimony which could certainly be impeached under cross-exam.  

          To wit I am providing some relevant quotes from statements that were taken under oath from Paramedic Michael Brandy, Lead Crew Member, and the two EMTs/Firefighters who directly treated Zimmerman: Kevin O'Rourke and Stacey Livingston.  Parts which are not in quotes are paraphrased because it takes too damn long to transcribe everything.  Anyone can feel free to listen to the audio recordings at the links provided and fact check these statements.

          Both EMTs say that it "looked like" he had a broken or fractured nose.  One says he used hydrogen peroxide and the other says she used "sterile saline and stuff" to help clean him up.  The lead paramedic says they used the peroxide to clean the blood off his hands and arms.   That could be a huge issue if there is the possibility they wiped off DNA or gunshot evidence before Zimmermans hands were swabbed and examined at the station.  Two of them say that they told the officer there that Zimmerman should be transported for possible stitches and the officer says the SPD will take care of it.

          These links have audio controls under the "Interview" section which allow anyone to listen for themselves.  They are each about 9-12 minutes long.

          FDLE Interview by David Lee of Firefighter/EMT Kevin O'Rourke

          Q: Can you give me a narrative of what occurred?

          A: He talks about going to scene and treating Trayvon Martin first. After they determine there's nothing they can do for him they are told there is another patient in the back of a police car.
          go to 3:15
          "we treated him for ah for 1 or 2 lacerations on back of the head and what looked to be a, ah, fractured nose and we cleaned the blood off of his head and face ... and we treated him as best we could and once the bleeding was under control we left him with the SPD and we backed out of the scene and we went home."

          Q: As far as Mr. Zimmerman's treatment what specfically did you do?

          A: "What did I do?  If I remember correctly I was ah getting the gauze you know pouring hydrogen peroxide on gauze and giving it to Stacey who was cleaning and I was assisting her in cleaning the wounds."

          Q: Can you give a description of what he was wearing?

          A: "A shirt and jeans I guess. I mean I don't remember exactly. A shirt and jeans. I know he had, he was covered in a pretty significant amount of blood.  I can tell you that, and it took a little while to clean him up."

          FDLE Interview of Stacey Livingston

          Same as O'Rourke, she begins her narrative starting from the time she arrived on the scene and what they did to Trayvon.

          4:44 Begins talking about Zimmerman -

          5:20 "Leaning forward he kind of had blood going you know on his face and we just started to clean him up to see what his injuries were.  Um and it looked like he could very well possibly had like a broken nose.  His nose was bloody and swollen. Um cleaned off the back of his head. Because some of the blood had dried so we kind of had to  get it off to see what he actually had. And he had two small maybe an inch like lacerations on the back of his head.  One looked a little deeper than the other but um we just cleaned him off with sterile water and stuff and tried to get him to stop bleeding and um the police officer that was standing there asked us you know does he need to be transported by ambulance?   And we just told him you know we'd be happy to take him. Looks like he may have a broken nose and could possibly need a stitch or two. And um I don't know how the determination was made but I know that we left and it was determined that the police were going to take him to see if he needed stitches.  And that was pretty much all..."

          FDLE Interview of Michael Brandy

          Arrived on scene pretty quick. Responsible for calling Trayvon's death based on heart monitor flat line. Once he made the call they left him the way he was and made their way out of that scene. There was nothing they could do.

          Q: Did you treat the other gentleman there Mr. Zimmerman?

          A: "Yes I did...He was sitting in the police car and he was in handcuffs.  I asked officer if he could ah open the door and at least let him swing out so we could evaluate him. He did so. Um, basically just ah evaluate him. He had cuts and abrasions on his face and his nose (unintelligible) had some damage, and he had a cut on the back of his head and we basically just ah cleaned him up."

          Q:Did he make any statements to you as to how he received his injuries?

          A: "No he didn't."
          Q: Did  he make any statements at all while you were there?
          A: "No. He was pretty quiet."

          Q: Once you treated Zimmerman what did you do after that?
          A: "...The wounds had stopped bleeding.  Told the officer there that he was going to need to go to the hospital probably and get some stitches.  And the officer said OK and I said do you want us to handle taking him or are you going to take him? He said we'll take him and that's basically all we did."

          Q: Can you describe the wounds in detail that you saw on Mr. Zimmerman?  

          A: "He had a definite laceration to the back of the head....It was pretty big.  It was probably about an inch to at least 1/2 inch wide; it was a definite wound back there. He had some abrasions on his forehead. He had a kind of like a (unintelligible?) on his nose, maybe a little swollen. He had abrasions on cheeks and his face."

          Q: Did you happen to examine his hands?  

          A: "He was in handcuffs the whole time.  He had blood on his arms and hands so we just kind of basically cleaned him off, took some peroxide and some gauze and just kind of cleaned off to make sure you know he didn't have anything else that wasn't seen and basically just washed his hands."

    •  Police? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam, Tonedevil, HappyinNM

      Would the police have let Zimmerman clean himself up? There is a stark difference between his appearance in the bloody photos versus when he exited the police car in the station and the photos taken in conjunction with the police interview at the station.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:28:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zimmerman claims EMS use peroxide to clean him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Tonedevil
  •  How can you straddle someone who is lying (17+ / 0-)

    face down and claim they were hitting you in the face?

    One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns. --- John Oliver

    by voroki on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

  •  There are lawyers and there are lawyers. Letting (6+ / 0-)

    inane texts written by a teenager get out makes the rest of your case look real bad to me. But then I'm not impartial, only lawyers are impartial.

  •  Good job (5+ / 0-)

    Couple of points. GZ made different statements about when he holstered his gun. In his very first interview, he said he holstered his gun, after he shot Trayvon and then he got on top of him.

    The photo of the back of his head, was not made by Wagner but by w13. The photo was made at 7:19:07 about 28 seconds before ofc. Schmidt arrived. Notice that GZ is holding his phone to his right ear. GZ has never mentioned that call.

    W13 also made a photo of Trayvon's body. According to Ayala Trayvon had both his hands under his body, which would contradict GZ's statement, that he spread Trayvon's arms to the side. W13's photo may prove to be important, because it will show the position of Trayvon's body, before he was turned over for cpr.

  •  Great job! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, S F Hippie, Tonedevil

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

  •  No DNA on his hands after he supposedly (6+ / 0-)

    held them over Zimmerman's bloody slobber-covered moosh?

    'Cause your eyes are tired & your feet are too & you wish the world was as tired as you." - Lowell George

    by rasbobbo on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:23:22 AM PDT

  •  Thanks I would appreciate it if you would (4+ / 0-)

    stop by and look at my diary

    Trayvon Martin could be my nephew

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:26:39 AM PDT

  •  Zimmerman's own words are nonsensical. (12+ / 0-)
    ZIMMERMAN: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands
    The only way you could hit anyone in the face if they were straddling them is if you were face up.  I would like to see even the most incredible double jointed contortionist hit someone in the face while they were face down on the ground and the other person was 'straddling them'.
  •  Zimmerman would have 2PROVE Trayvon caused his (4+ / 0-)

    injuries in order to lay a self defense claim

    This diary shows there is no physical or forensic evidence that suggests Trayvon Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries.

  •  I wonder how many of GZ's defenders... (12+ / 0-)

    would've allowed him to detain them while they were walking through their neighborhood, on their cell phones, because he didn't think they belonged?

    How many would have let him follow them, insisting they submit to his interrogation?

    What if GZ were black and tried to detain them?

  •  "Black Panic!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, a2nite

    That's what Zimmerman's "defense" (such as it is, and such as there is of it) amounts to. Life in prison is too good for a sick, race-hating bastard who guns down a teenager out of "race panic" (aka Zimmerman), but I fear that this being a Florida court, he's not going to get what he deserves.

    Can anyone familiar with the court in question give a synopsis of how good/bad the situation there is for justice in a trial this racially-tinged?

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 12:12:23 PM PDT

    •  I checked the 2012 presidential (0+ / 0-)

      election result for Seminole county. Romney won that county, but Obama got 46 % of the vote. The jury is selected from that same pool. I don't believe GZ will get an acquital. I think the defense is aiming for a hung jury.

  •  Excellent, but a small correction. (0+ / 0-)
    ZIMMERMAN: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands, so I thought he had a weapon, so I grabbed his hands and pushed them away from his body, and I said, "STOP! Don't move." He was saying something like "ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing" and I said, "STOP, don't move" and then somebody came and had a flashlight and I thought was a cop and I said - oh and I still had my gun in my hand as I was holding his hands apart and I said are you a cop he said "no" but I'll call them.  I said, "I don't need you to do that I need you to help me restrain this guy."
    I've watched the video of the walkthrough, and Zimmerman never says that Martin was "saying something like 'ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing' . . .."

    If Zimmerman had said that, it would be yet another lie of his, since Martin died within seconds and medical experts have said he couldn't have spoken with collapsed lungs anyway. I would love nothing better than to add another lie to his long list of lies, but it doesn't look like he said that.

    •  Robert, time 34:03 GZ claims TM said "ahhh ahhh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, GrumpyOldGeek

      and cursing"

      At the 34:03 minute mark of the video (below and in my diary) Zimmerman describes what he was doing as he was on top of Trayvon Martin's back after he killed Trayvon:

      Zimmerman: I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands, so I thought he had a weapon, so I grabbed his hands and pushed them away from his body, and I said, "STOP! Don't move." He was saying something like "ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing" and I said, "STOP, don't move" and then somebody came and had a flashlight and I thought was a cop and I said - oh and I still had my gun in my hand as I was holding his hands apart and I said are you a cop he said "no" but I'll call them.  I said, "I don't need you to do that I need you to help me restrain this guy."

    •  Robert: Time 33:31 Zimmerman starts the claim (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeamSarah4Choice, Sychotic1

      that leads to him accusing Martin of saying, "ahhhhh ahhhh and cursing"

      Specifically at 33:55 Zimmerman says "He was saying something like "ahhhh ahhhhh and cursing" and I said, "STOP, don't move"

  •  Most of us are not in the habit of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, indie17, GrumpyOldGeek, a2nite

    calling other human being "fucking coons," which Zimmerman appears to call Martin, or which Zimmerman appears to say in response to Martin's walking in that neighborhood.

    There is dispute over what Zimmerman actually said because the audio is far from clear.  What I hear when I listen to it is George Zimmerman saying "fucking coons."  You all can listen and see what you think he says.

    This is highly problematic and suggests to me a bedrock knee-jerk bigotry based on racial stereotype.  

    If what it sounds like he says is what he in fact does say, it does not suggest in the least the remark of a man trying to resolve a conflict, if indeed there even was a conflict.  

    To me, it suggests a verbal caption of a piece with a racially-motivated murder of an unarmed human being.  

    •  I've never seen racoons fucking (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, amsterdam

      They do, though. I've seen baby racoons.

      Even though these words aren't perfectly clear, every sentence is  nothing but racist rhetoric. They always get away... He's on something.. He's up to no good.. He's carrying something... Are you following him? Yes!

      Here's my baby racoon evidence:

      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:35:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Coons is a pretty old term (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I m 59 and remember the term but someone Zimmerman's age probably would not ever use the term but would probably use the N word.
    The bottom line in this case is if he didn't follow Trayvon like he was told no one would have been killed. Still having served on a jury my guess they will get a hung jury.

  •  Okay, I haven't read (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, TFinSF, Remediator, otto

    ... the closing in on 300 comments in this diary, so if this has been addressed, apologies. That said, according the Zimmerman:

    I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face  ...
    Unless Trayvon was a contortionist, how was he able to hit Zimmerman in the face from that position?  
  •  I'm sorry if it's been posted, but I'm with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My 3 kids and don't have time to read through all the posts.
    However, even if we disregard the FACT the we have George Zimmerman admitting in his 911 call that he is actively pursuing a, to his admitted knowledge, unarmed citizen, while armed, making him the aggressor, I would like to point out some VERY anecdotal evidence, that is at least pertinent.
    1)George Zimmerman was an over active member of his neighborhood watch, becoming "head" as the only volunteer. Yet, he claims the only reason he pursued Trayvon in his interview,  was that he didn't know the street names. Even at 12 I knew all the street names in my neighborhood, and I didn't drive, nor was I an overly active member of the neighborhood watch.
    2) Whenever it is convenient for him to have a lapse in memory, he has it. (Where Trayvon came from, what was said, how Trayvon went for the gun, what street he was on). And yet, he can almost perfectly recall what Trayvon was wearing, whether or not the interviewer was wearing a watch, the control questions (even in a high stress situation), and countless others. But, when truly pertinent information is requested, "I don't recall, sir".
    Like I said not as damning as the 911 call/confession, but not good if you're the defense.

  •  Here's a question... (0+ / 0-)
    I was on top of him, straddling him, he was face down, when he kept hitting me in the face it felt like something was in his hands, so I thought he had a weapon, so I grabbed his hands and pushed them away from his body,
    How do you hit someone in the face if you're face down on the ground and they're straddling you? Maybe you could get your head up and into theirs if they have their face low enough, but even that isn't likely and it wouldn't be repeatedly because the other person would pull back. But especially as he was worried about his hands and a weapon, the shoulder joint just doesn't work that way.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:09:06 PM PDT

  •  Zimmerman is a piece of shit. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, TeamSarah4Choice

    Not that that's news to anyone. I wish he could be locked up forever.

    He took that child from his parents. As a father, I just can't get over that.

    Obama is the Chickenshit-in-Chief for failing to stand up to Republicans on all their phony scandals, from the "beer summit," to Van Jones, "death panels," Shirley Sherrod, contraception, Benghazi, and the IRS.

    by expatjourno on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:19:25 PM PDT

  •  what if Martin used both his hands (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    and held Zimmerman's head as he slammed it?

    Hey, I'm  on Martin's side, but I'm just asking.

    "So I'm at the wailing wall, standing there like a moron, with my harpoon." - Emo Philips

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

  •  Putting on my Karnak Turban (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, a2nite

    Wow.  I remember the furor when this broke as a news story.  I heard 27 minute long clips of phone calls within 14 hours of the killing.  I was so g*dd*mned mad at the police and at southern racism (and having grown up in the South I now whereof I speak), I could have exploded (but didn't).

    I'm still trying to figure out why the DA is playing "escaladio" with the defense liars by leaking information better left, in my opinion (sic) to slamblast a jury with a first exposure during trial.

    Now I'll read down to your comments.  Might I bet there'll be two or more trolls, one posing as a member of the authenticity police and the other trying desperately to pretend to be on the side of DKOS rulz, while forgetting that this is a **progressive** discussion website and that their own frantic attempts to appear to be above it all are nothing more than right wing backpedalling?

    Okay, all BS aside; thanks for your diaries of the past couple of days.  I'm trying not to wish this were a death penalty trial and that the conviction and execution of a murderous rapist were a done deal.

    I've gotten old and woke up at the end of my life and discovered that this country has taken MORE steps back -- way way more, than forward in the past 50 plus years. I don't want my heart broken any further and I worry that that the verdict is going to do just that.

    Mr. Chambers! Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man", it's... it's a cookbook!

    by Adelante on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:08:30 PM PDT

    •  Absurd (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, Dr Swig Mcjigger, Pi Li, Kathy S

      You can't really believe this.  

      this country has taken MORE steps back -- way way more, than forward in the past 50 plus years
      Do you remember what it was like in 1963?  Sure, outrageous injustices still happen.  But in 1963 they probably happened 10 times more frequently, and they wouldn't have even been publicized.  

      Can't we recognize that we still have a lot to do in this country to achieve social justice without saying we have gone nowhere in 50 years??!!!  

      •  You asked (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Do you remember what it was like in 1963?
        Considering that I was 2 blocks away and had just been cheering when JFK was murdered, I consider your question to be both insulting and stupid.  Isn't that what you intended it to be?   50 fvcking years later there are more overt calls for the assassination of a sittting president because of his skin color than there were calls for the murder of a Catholic for running 53 years ago.

        In 50 years, women still do not have equal rights in pay for work and experience by federal law -- our pay rate compared to men has gone up a whole 18 g*dd*mned cents.  There are more and more effective erosions into women's rights over our bodies and their contents than ever before, and you sit there and claim things are better now than they were 50 years ago.  Zip up that fly and shame on you!

        It's been less than 2 decades since James Byrd was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck.

        I watched a horrific racial debate over the Bell curve occur and go on for over a year on CompuServe 15 years ago.

        The skinhead movement in this country is on the rise, and in spite of the SPLC watching and publicizing the growth of these outfits, they're chock full of adherents and have *mainstreamed themselves by training their former teen members to laser off their visible tats, let their hair grow out, get teaching and poly sci degrees and worm their way into the warp and weft of this nation's government from the municipal level up.  

        This country is considered the most dangerous rogue nation on the planet, and you claim we've improved?  What in hell are you smoking?

        Mr. Chambers! Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man", it's... it's a cookbook!

        by Adelante on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:03:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  will you accept whatever verdict the jury returns? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    Or have you already decided guilt and come up with your own sentence?  

    You know you're in Oregon when you only see people using an umbrella to protect themselves from the sun.

    by Keith930 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:16:34 PM PDT

  •  In the Miami (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, godlessmath

    Herald coverage, O'Mara is at great pains to establish that TM is a dangerous weed head, that he was seen "swaying" while he bought candy at the nearby convenience store.

    Unless O'Mara said more or was misquoted, the entirety of his remarks constitute a character assassination.  

    "You see," his legal strategy infers, "my poor client had no choice but to use lethal force against such an unstable and dangerous, drug-ridden individual as Trayvon Martin."

    May the jury have their wits about them.  

  •  even if he were not guilty, the cops were racist (6+ / 0-)

    If he were to be proven not guilty, then the cops were still insanely racists. Even if Zimmerman were horribly bruised and bleeding, they should arrest him before the ER.

    The cops did not charge Zimmerman and told him to go home.

    The cops did not tell Trayvon's family (a family mad with worry) that their beloved son had been killed. They completely ignored and blew off Trayvon's families pleas for help finding their son, while they had already identified him. They did not bother to call.

    Trayvon could have been the most super-scary man in ten states, and the cops' behavior would have been unacceptable. The rule of law is the rule that none of us are disposable.  You are not supposed to kill someone and sleep in your own bed that night.

    That Trayvon was just a kid makes their behavior monstrous.

    •  ding ding ding (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We have a winner, you!

      I am reminded of a scene from one of my favorite movies, Tombstone. Two gun fighters get into a fight in broad daylight on a city street. One kills the other. The town sheriff sees this and nonchalantly walks over asking the fighter to turn over his gun. The fighter responds "it was a fair fight, and we were legal." The sheriff responds "sorry boys, but I have to take you in front of the judge nonetheless."

      The whole scene, of course, is supposed to be completely ridiculous. Perhaps a caricature.

      In this case, however, less than that happened.

    •  The problem is the SYG law (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrumpyOldGeek, cc, a2nite

      It gives a police department like the Sanford one, an excuse not to arrest in a case where syg is claimed. Some liability on the part of LE is implied for arresting someone, if that person is later found to have acted in accordance with syg.

      It is a rediculous law that should be repealed. If you are truely worried about your life, you are not going to worry about self defense laws. If you are not genuinely in fear of losing your life, having to face a likely prosecution, would be a deterrent to use excessive force.

    •  People are disposable especially POC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:04:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Treyvon was on top of Z when the bullet (4+ / 0-)

    ripped open his heart and shredded his lung, Z would have blood on him from Treyvon.

    He also would most likely have ended up with the dead Treyvon crumpled on top of him bleeding copiously from nose and  mouth.

    Teryvon, I believe ended up face down with his hands under him, so why did Z grapple with his innert body?  
    T would have been functionally dead as soon as the bullet hit because he bled out, into his chest and lungs, within seconds.  I believe the autopsy said 3 liters of blood were removed from his chest.

    So how could Z have no blood from Treyvon on his clothes or his hands?

    Answer:  Z stood facing a standing Treyvon, aimed at his heart and fired even though the kid was screaming for help, which when it came would have helped Z hold T till the cops came.  Z shot him anyway.

    Notice the screaming stopped immediately the sort was fired.

    Had it been Z screaming he would have continued to call for help and for police.  Yet he was completely tacit and did not go for help.

    •  I can't wait until the prosecutor makes GZ scream (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There won't be any questions.
      We don't need no stinkin' voice analysis.

      The lack of blood and DNA is damning, imo.

      GZ outweighed Trayvon by 100 lbs back then, now he would outweigh him by 200 lbs. That won't help.

      It's all about the jury. REASONABLE doubt, not just a tiny shred of doubt.

      Unless the prosecution blows it.....

      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Zimmerman's reference to "fucking coons" (0+ / 0-)

    should be played in the court early on in the proceedings, in my opinion.  

    If he takes the stand he should be asked what he meant by "fucking coons."  

    "Mr. Zimmerman, is this your voice on the telephone recording?  If so, you make a reference to what sounds like 'fucking coons' in the context of Trayvon Martin's walking on the street in your neighborhood.  Were you referring to Mr. Martin?  If not, to whom were you referring?  Did you expect the person on the other end of the phone call to understand your reference to "fucking coons?"  

    "If you did mean Mr. Martin with that reference, would you please tell the court on what grounds you would argue to Trayvon Martin's parents that he was a "fucking coon".  It may have occurred to both Trayvon's father and mother that an explanation is owed for your referring to their son as a "fucking coon" as well as for your vigilante action in shooting him to death. "

  •  Why is all this stuff out in public? EOM (0+ / 0-)
  •  pursuit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't understand how you can have a stand your ground defense if you pursue someone.  The way I read the law it seems to say that you don't have to retreat, you can stand your ground.  I interpret that to mean that if you are minding your own business and someone comes after you, you can protect yourself.  Trayvon might have used that defense since he was the one being pursued and could have reasonably thought that his life was in danger (since in the end it was).  If Trayvon could have used that defense to the letter of the law if he had killed Zimmerman, how would it be possible that Zimmerman could have used the same defense?  Zimmerman's life was not in danger as Trayvon was running away as stated in the transcript.   If you are allowed to instigate an altercation or pursue someone before using that defense, then all bar brawls could allow people to kill in order to stand their ground.  I know the rest of the testimony from Z is faulty, but I still can't get past the stand your ground defense when he was chasing, not standing.

    •  SYG is a generalized name for these laws (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, amsterdam, worldlotus

      It's not limited nor defined as literally "stand your ground". It can be considered as an extended version of the so-called castle doctrine, as in the trite cliche, "a man's home is his castle". The idea was to extend the get-away-with-murder beyond your home and yard to anywhere in public.

      This is what I think could have produced this horrible law. (yeah, exaggerated and absurd, but maybe not all that far from the truth) Somewhere, some ALEC creep killed someone who dared step on his lawn (his castle), except he murdered the victim in the street. So the castle doctrine didn't apply. And some states thought you should try to escape from the threat before resorting to killing the unfortunate lawn intruder. And this murderer had to spend time in jail. He didn't run. He wasn't on the lawn. Whatever. This just wasn't fair!!! So ALEC changed the boilerplate and states blindly enacted this travesty into law. It's the SYG law.

      This is their idiotic rationalization: If a paranoid gun nut has the right to carry a gun, he should have the right to use it anywhere, anytime. After all, anything else would take away his freedoms and is a violation of his 2nd amendment God-given right and besides, Obama's gonna taike yer gunnns aweigh......

      The laws varies by state. Each has altered it to adjust for the level of extreme crazy of their legislators. Florida isn't the worst, btw.

      Not being accurate here, the law amounts to the idea that anyone who claims he feels threatened is justified in using deadly force to prevent his imaginary deadly threat. The police are prohibited from investigaing if the shooter makes this claim. The judge is required to accept self-defense as given and no evidence of that is required ot even allowed to be presented in some states.

      Racist anti-government gun nuts like to believe that this is lets them kill blah and brown people at will. It doesn't, but there's been an increase in murders and SYG claims. The NRA propaganda distorts the facts. No surprise there.

      Sadly, several murderers have walked in Florida and in other states based on SYG.

      Shooting someone in the back might be questioned. The SYG defense didn't work for someone who murdered a sleeping spouse. Yep, they tried.

      The Sanford PD actually let GZ walk initially. No investigation to speak of. The area has a horrible history of racial bias (an understatement). I've spent time in this area myself. The racism is scary. And I knew real KKK members years ago. Sanford was worse.

      A SYG defense is still not out of the question for GZ even though they waived an initial SYG hearing opportunity. Too risky, imo.

      I'll be watching....

      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:52:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know there was a 44 day gap between (0+ / 0-)

    Trayvon's shooting and Zimmermann's arrest.  I wonder what Mr. Zimmerman's overt poitical involvements are?

  •  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is a good guy with a gun...but what stops a "good guy" with a gun.

    That's the problem here. How many self-appointed guardians are the NRA riling up right now? A lot more black kids guilty of wearing hoodies are going to be killed.

    And just like with Zimmerman all these self-righteous gun nutters are going to be jumping to their defense.

    Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

    by backell on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

Thumb, JekyllnHyde, BOHICA, itsbenj, True North, murphy, Pandora, Emerson, exNYinTX, expatjourno, Creosote, Heart of the Rockies, rasbobbo, bronte17, 88kathy, susans, TracieLynn, litho, amsterdam, whenwego, ask, mrblifil, retLT, splashy, CocoaLove, dksbook, aitchdee, Lilyvt, slippytoad, Barbara Morrill, Nag, pat bunny, ranger995, MA Liberal, solliges, Damnit Janet, texasmom, lcrp, Steven D, sebastianguy99, sb, Dirk McQuigley, maybeeso in michigan, Tinfoil Hat, CTPatriot, Tonedevil, ZappoDave, YucatanMan, eru, majcmb1, Dem Beans, RichterScale, Tunk, Blu Gal in DE, Rogneid, peacestpete, Ekaterin, begone, Knucklehead, Debbie in ME, The Game of Life, Kingsmeg, cybersaur, mango, blueoasis, erratic, Rosaura, armadillo, MarciaJ720, sceptical observer, middleagedhousewife, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, kurt, NancyWH, Bernie68, Aaa T Tudeattack, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, BeninSC, nipit, devis1, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, Matt Z, newpioneer, Seneca Doane, second gen, Fawkes News, Librarianmom, cececville, leonard145b, madgranny, vet, Empower Ink, trivium, JDWolverton, seriously70, revm3up, mconvente, HappyinNM, Youffraita, NewDealer, bythesea, Ronald England, ajr111240, Lujane, royce, Jeff Y, catly, Gemina13, petulans, luckylizard, BYw, Karl Rover, suesue, JamieG from Md, Nica24, Diogenes2008, GustavMahler, maxcat06, Bule Betawi, cybrestrike, greengemini, bobatkinson, WakeUpNeo, CamillesDad1, DefendOurConstitution, Remediator, virginwoolf, geebeebee, lastman, Denise Oliver Velez, Tortmaster, ayjaymay, jpmassar, Lefty Ladig, ruscle, NJpeach, eXtina, Lost and Found, JoanMar, samanthab, pixxer, DiegoUK, Jaimas, Betty Pinson, science nerd, I love OCD, oldmilitant, spooks51, sabo33, vahana, Teiresias70, Ricochet67, thomask, akmk, BarackStarObama, Grandma Susie, worldlotus, enhydra lutris, VTCC73, stevie avebury, SteelerGrrl, weinerschnauzer, MikeBoyScout, leftykook, joanbrooker, Davui, thepothole, keepemhonest, joelgp, The Book Bear, OldDragon, Heart n Mind, anodnhajo, sow hat, Siri, Core Da Freak, S F Hippie, a2nite, HoofheartedBC, FloridaSNMOM, Horace Boothroyd III, The Voice from the Cave, Forward is D not R, belinda ridgewood, Leo Flinnwood, radical simplicity, NativeSonKY, MartyM, Murphoney, doroma, arizonablue, etherealfire, Glen The Plumber, Robynhood too, Australian2, Silvia Nightshade, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, Dancun74, Sam Sara, countwebb, TeamSarah4Choice, howabout, LaraJones, OjaiValleyCali, BadKitties, ET3117, blue91, Jim Domenico, Politikator09, DarthMeow504, Havoth, Chas 981, OldSoldier99, pierre9045, dream weaver, Libbylalala, Pork Que, MrUniteUs1

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site