Martin autopsy / Zimmerman medical report

[Dr Mordrid]

http://abcnews.go.co...32#.T7OgNlK8hmw

A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
>

http://www.wftv.com/...juries-h/nN6gs/

WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.

The information could support George Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.

The autopsy results come as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.

O’Mara wouldn't comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it's better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.

WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.

When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman's bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.
>

[KRSESQ]

Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in his car like the police told him to.

[Dr Mordrid]

Maybe he shouldn't have to.

[cjolley]

Yeah, maybe having a gun permit should allow him to stalk anyone he wants to

[Dr Mordrid]

"Stalking" involves a repetitive series of behaviors over time, and is not usually applied to a single incident. This is going to be a hard case to make.

[KRSESQ]

I have one simple question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered: Why is individual A, armed with a pistol, allowed protection under SYG but individual B, armed only with his fists, not?

It's a clusterf*ck, plain and simple: Two individuals, each one presumably completely within the law (Martin didn't even steal the Goddamned Skittles and iced tea). Each one feeling threatened by the other. Each one entitled under the law to stand their ground rather than retreat.

The questions before the jury: which one had the greater right to feel threatened and which one had the greater right to be proactive in their self-defense?

And if Zimmerman felt so threatened that he thought a gun was needed, again why did he leave the relative safety of his car? "He was within his rights" is not a good enough answer in this situation. Zimmerman's not a cop. He's not a law enforcement professional of any kind. He's never had any military training. He's obviously never had any self-defense or unarmed combat training. He's a mortgage underwriter. As a neighborhood watch patrolman, his incompetence is unspeakable.

This is exactly the kind of guy you do not want packing heat on neighborhood watch, and this is exactly the reason why: Because eventually the wrong person winds up dead and everybody is pissed off.

[Dr Mordrid]

I have one simple question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered: Why is individual A, armed with a pistol, allowed protection under SYG but individual B, armed only with his fists, not?
>
This is exactly the kind of guy you do not want packing heat on neighborhood watch, and this is exactly the reason why: Because eventually the wrong person winds up dead and everybody is pissed off.

False premise for both.

In most all SYG laws the fundamental idea is you have no duty to retreat, which often you cannot as when some idiot is on your chest pummeling your face, and you can use any means necessary or available to defend yourself. Got a gun? Shoot. Got a knife? Cut. Got a pipe? Swing away. Gloves off.

Zimmerman was not on patrol but on his way to the store, and like many of us who CC he wore his firearm when he went out - particularly at night because, DUH!, that's when most robberies and muggings occur. This kid was a stranger to the neighborhood and was seen scurrying around behind buildings including a closed rec building. Sounds worth a look to me. I've been a neighborhood watcher myself, and more than once I've also seen something suspicious when not on a scheduled patrol and had to deal with it.

Years ago I was out at night, not on patrol but carrying. It was after 10:00PM so the local cop-shop was closed save for a night secretary (small town-itis) and sure enough I ended up making a citizens arrest for an assault, so I see where he could have had a similar thing happen but it spiraled out of control. Sh** happens.

[cjolley]

"Stalking" involves a repetitive series of behaviors over time, and is not usually applied to a single incident. This is going to be a hard case to make.

Odd, there doesn't seem to be anything about repetitive in the definition:
stalkingpresent participle of stalk (Verb)

Verb:

• Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
• Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".

...Sh** happens.

So "oops, my bad" makes up for killing someone innocently walking down the street?
That makes me feel real secure about your view of the responsibilitys of a CC license.

[KRSESQ]

False premise for both.

In most all SYG laws the fundamental idea is you have no duty to retreat, which often you cannot as when some idiot is on your chest pummeling your face.

This is circular reasoning, since Martin wouldn't have been sitting on top of Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't pressed his pursuit against police advice.

This kid ...was seen scurrying around behind buildings including a closed rec building.

Fact 1: Martin was fully within his rights as an American to be where he was.

Fact 2: Martin was going about his lawful private business.

Fact 3: Martin was fully aware that an unknown individual in a car was stalking him (yes, the word stalking applies in this case). Any evasive behavior he engaged in would be consistant with someone trying to retreat from a possible confrontation. Zimmerman brought the confrontation to Martin when he got out of his car and continued his pursuit on foot. Why shouldn't an UNARMED Martin have the right to stand his ground against an ARMED pursuer of UNKNOWN INTENT?

[cjolley]

Judging by the last couple of cases in Florida Zimmerman is going to have trouble making a claim of self defense, much less SYG.

[Dr Mordrid]

Alan Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard Law School. At the age of 28 he became the youngest full professor of law in Harvard's history, and he has held the Felix Frankfurter Professorship since 1993. He is also a bigtime political liberal, not a conservative.

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1080161

New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense

By Alan Dershowitz

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.

You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.

As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.

Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”

But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.

Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:

“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”

The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”

Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.

[KRSESQ]

Nahh. Zimmerman only chased down Martin with a gun, without identifying himself as a cop. That's not the least bit provoking.

[Dr Mordrid]

Carrying the gun is legal. Period.

Following is annoying, and may or may not be legal, but it's key that he hasn't been charged with stalking so there is likely no evidence to support it.

Citizens arrests are legal in 49 of 50 states, so you don't necessarily have to be a cop to act like one. This may well include checking out a suspicious person/event. Made a few myself.

And, as Prof. Dershowitz said, even if Zimmerman can't claim SYG he still retains the standard self defense claim that would allow him to counterattack if someone had him grounded and was pummeling his head.

[cjolley]

Martin was exercising his stand your ground rights.
He had no obligation to remain passive in the face of Zimmerman's actions.

And citizens arrest has nothing to do with any of this.
Martin was doing nothing illegal or even suspicious except in Zimmerman's imagination.

[Umfriend]

Yep, that was what I was thinking as well. May well turn out that given the laws both are "innocent".