Martin autopsy / Zimmerman medical report

[Brian Ellis]

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

Hardly consolation for the family of the kid!

[Dr Mordrid]

As Prof. Dershowitz said, at the point where Martin continues to pummel someone already in a dominated position he is then the attacker and Zimmerman's self defense rights supersede his. He could have easily said "sorry man, be cool" and quit, but no. Bad move.

[cjolley]

Doc, you seem absolutely unable to see the position that Martin was in.
Did he have any rights at all?
He felt Zimmerman was a threat to life and limb.
Is it therefore OK if he shoots Zimmerman, but not OK if he knocks him out?

I'm really asking, because your position vis-a-vis Martin's self defense rights really baffles me.

[Dr Mordrid]

As the Prof. pointed out both have defense rights but the primary right can shift according to who is the aggressor at the moment when one is in danger of serious injury or death.

Zimmerman was at that point the defender, being at high risk of a closed head injury, regardless of what happened previously - the "following" and the fight being two related, but separate, incidents separated by Zimmerman going back towards his vehicle. After that the police admit they do not know what happened other than the eyewitness account.

So far the evidence does not contradict Zimmerman's story; the injuries to Zimmerman are now well documented, and Martin's fist shows evidenceof aggression (wounds on his knuckle(s). The gunshot showed stippling, powder burns, indicating a very close discharge. Etc, etc, etc.

[Umfriend]

All the more reason to shoot right away, I guess. Using your fists just means you need to back-off once you're on top which may yield the initiative to the perp giving him time to recover and pull a knife or gun.

[cjolley]

Or that Stand Your Ground is incompatible with a right to self defense.
Once you stand your ground you become the aggressor and the other persons self defense rights gain primacy.

Personally, I don't think it works like that. It's the over all event that defines causes.
That's why the original police report blames Zimmerman because he continued to follow Martin after being told to break off.

[Umfriend]

Or that Stand Your Ground is incomparable with a right to self defense.
Once you stand your ground you become the aggressor and the other persons self defense rights gain primacy.

Personally, I don't think it works like that. It's the over all event that defines causes.
That's why the original police report blames Zimmerman because he continued to follow Martin after being told to break off.

Not sure I understand your point. If the overal event defines causes AND you want to be sure you get off the hook then if you feel/are threatened you'd better shoot to kill and rely on SYG. Otherwise you must re-asess constantly whether you are the hunter or the prey and apparantly that is legally risky (and physically as well as M can no longer attest to).

[cjolley]

You may have not gotten my point because there was a typo in it

I meant to type "Or that Stand Your Ground is incompatible with a right to self defense."

Does that make more sense?

It's because SYG creates a feedback loop in the doctrine of self defense if you believe Dershowitz's logic.


PS I bet that this is the first time in his life that Doc has ever referred to Dershowitz by the respectful "As the Prof. pointed out..."

[Dr Mordrid]

Prof. Dershowitz may be a liberal, but he's classical liberal with a libertarian streak.

The two defenses, SYG and "regular," are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

[cjolley]

The two defenses, SYG and "regular," are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

But how can that be if moment by moment circumstances can make someone who stands their ground into the aggressor and change the party who is self defending?
Can both claim self defense? That turns the principal of right of self defense into a joke.

[Helevitia]

People can use all the fancy words and pointing to laws all they want. That doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, with a gun, chasing somebody who was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman obviously had some sort of god or superman complex and I honestly believe he was thinking he was doing the right thing, even if it was delusional.

In my eyes, it's as simple as, Zimmerman thought he was doing the right thing and made poor choices. Martin was defending himself. Zimmerman needs to suffer the consequences of his actions, which is, he killed somebody who did nothing wrong.

[Helevitia]

Oh! and Hi everyone

[Dr Mordrid]

Trayvon had a right, hut once he had Zimmerman in an inferior position and continued to press the attack in what could be a seriously harmful way he became the aggressor and Zimmerman's right to survive superceded Martin's.

Look at it in another context; a mugger accosts you and you shoot and wound him. So far - so good, but if after he's in the inferior position (likely on the ground) you apply another shot in anger you, the initial victim, have committed a crime and if he pulls a backup gun and shoots you he's within his rights.

[cjolley]

Hey man. How are things?

[Helevitia]

@Doc, I hear what you are saying and I've struggled with what might have happened, but ultimately I come back to, this would have never happened if Zimmerman didn't get all Chuck Norris on Martin WE will simply have to agree to disagree Hope things are well with you?

@Chuck, Things are fantastic! Today is a good day. I'm blessed to have a beautiful son and daughter. My 5 yr old daughter is amazing I'll post a pic in a new thread so as not to derail this one.