Volunteer watchman George Zimmerman suffered "insignificant" injuries in the fight in which he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a medical examiner testified on Tuesday, as prosecutors attempted to undermine Zimmerman's claim he feared for his life.
In court on Tuesday, medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman's injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete. He had a broken nose and two small cuts on the back of his head.
That's pretty much a bad day for GZ, but how about this?
Serino also said he thought Zimmerman had exaggerated his description of the blows that he claims Martin inflicted on him.
Despite Zimmerman's claim that Martin had put his hands over his mouth and nose to smother him, prosecutors have said there was no blood and none of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands or clothing.
This is the medical examiner that was selected by the special prosecutor, not the medical examiner that actually examined Zimmerman. Rao examined photographs.
ReplyDeleteBut still, the defense is not claiming Zimmerman suffered “grave bodily injury or death”. Instead the claim is that he prevented “grave bodily injury or death” by defending himself, which all self-defense laws allow for. We know Zimmerman was taken into custody that night, walked under his own power, and was able to field questions from investigators, without puking up blood, or passing out, going into seizures, etc. So yes, the injuries he did suffer could be called “insignificant”.
None of this fits with the original narrative of a boy helpless boy being run down by a vigilante stalker and murdered. The prosecution seems to be in damage control mode now. It is conceding that Zimmerman was being beaten, now they are trying to make it look like it wasn’t that bad and not worth self-defense. They are doing the best they can with the facts of the case.
Wrong, TS, what it fails to fit is the bullshit narrative that Trayvon was SLAMMING George's head into the concrete over and over again.
DeleteThis was very bad testimony for GZ.
You keep refusing to answer this, regardless of who asks:
DeleteIf Trayvon WASN'T slamming GZ's head on the ground, how did he get those cuts?
There was some amount of head banging on the ground.
What does "over and over again" mean to you? More than once? I'm likely to believe his head hit the concrete more than once, you're not? There are clearly multiple cuts, and not every impact would nessesarily break skin. But really, this is your argument now? It doesn't matter how many times he did. He's not allowed to do that to another person at all!
Deleteladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client stands accused of raping this woman, but I contend he only penetrated her with his penis once, and there was no 'repeated thrusting' as you were lead to believe..,
The word used in court was "repeatedly." For me that's the same as "over and over again." Those terms are not consistent with the "insignificant" injuries.
Delete"Slammed repeatedly" is what was said. Yet, no stitches.
It might be because they used dermabond- a substitute to stitches.
DeleteMike, we are not allowed to slam people's heads into the concrete for following us. We're not allowed to do it once, or repeatedly. It's called "assault", you can be charged with a serious crime, and the victim has a right to defend themselves.
The expert witness testified the cuts on GZ's head were not consistent with slamming repeatedly on the concrete.
Delete"Serino also said he thought Zimmerman had exaggerated his description of the blows that he claims Martin inflicted on him."
ReplyDeleteIf they can instruct the jury to disregard the the detective's belief that Zimmerman was being truthful why is it ok that he can say he thought Zimmerman was exaggerating about the blows he was receiving from Martin?
O.K., so cuts and a broken nose aren't enough? Well, then, tell us: How much brain damage is required before a person may defend himself?
ReplyDeleteSeems like death is a little bit of an overreaction for 2 small cuts and a punch to the face, which he most likely deserved.
ReplyDeleteBut, but, but, that's what having a gun is all about. You don't have to take that shit from anyone.
DeleteNo, it means that we don't have to take a physical assault that has the potential to lead to death or serious injury. Now you tell us, Mikeb, what could a teenager who is sitting on top of someone and hitting him possibly intend?
DeleteAs far as I know, the 17-year-old had no history of beating people to death with his bare hands. I don't think he even had a history of aggravated assault. So, my guess is he was trying to teach that "creepy-ass cracker" a good lesson, man to man, maybe humiliate him in the process.
DeleteBut, this is what you guys are all about. You want to be able to harrass "fucking punks" like that and get away with it. If they get the better of you, you've always got the gat.
If someone were to break Valerie Rao's nose (not to mention the back of the head to the concrete), I wonder if she'd stick to her "very insignificant" assessment.
ReplyDeleteAnd from the article, reinforcing what TS has explained:
David Weinstein, a former prosecutor and Miami-area defense lawyer, cautioned against reading too much into Rao's testimony in a case that centers on Florida's self-defense laws and the justified use of deadly force.
"There is no requirement that you prove that you were injured to any particular degree. Only that you believed that deadly force was necessary to defend yourself from 'imminent death or great bodily harm,'" said Weinstein, who is not involved in the case.
Actually, it seems to me that Weinstein is putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. Would it not be the prosecution that must prove that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe lethal force was necessary to prevent his death or great bodily harm, rather than the defense having to prove the he did?
Her hypothesis is that multiple lacerations came from one impact, as opposed to the more likely scenario. Remember the prosecution sought out an examiner who would say this based on a picture. They may have done a lot of shopping around. That is not nearly as credible as the examiner on the scene. She also testified that Zimmerman must have a naturally lumpy head when asked about specific marks. I think it would be brilliant if O’Mara has him come in with a shaved head today and has her match his “natural” bumps with the photograph.
ReplyDeleteBut tell us, how many head knocks to the concrete does it take before one can defend themselves? The beating went on for 45 seconds and stopped only when Martin was shot. Even if he only got one good head pound in, he was still engaged in delivering more. Legally it doesn’t require any, but in the absence of an attacker’s weapon it is much easier to convince a jury when the attacker started using the concrete as a weapon.
I’ll agree that this was a somewhat bad testimony for Zimmerman (I won’t say “very bad”). But these are the prosecution’s witnesses- they’re supposed to be bad for the defense. Considering all the times the prosecution’s witness ended up being a positive testimony for Zimmerman, and the counsel would end up trying to discredit their own witness, or have their remarks stricken from the record, I’d say the case it not going well for the state.
Again, the prosecution has conceded Zimmerman was being beat up at the time of the shooting. That's a far cry from the narrative used to stir up racial tensions being pushed by the media, gun control groups, Sharpton, Obama, et al. Obama didn't say, "if I had a son, he would ONLY bust 'creepy-ass cracker' heads ONCE."
ReplyDeleteThe creepy-ass cracker started it by following him. We'll never know what he said to the boy to get his attention. Or, maybe he even grabbed hum by the shoulder to turn him around.
DeleteJudging by his "these fucking punks" remark to the dispatcher, he probably said something like that to Trayvon, the unarmed person who had a perfect right to be where he was.
Mikeb, can you see how it's possible that Martin doubled back and started the fight? I can see how your scenario is possible. Can you see how Zimmerman could be the victim?
DeleteYou can say he started following him, but we know he lost sight of him. It is much harder to claim Martin was worthy of defending himself with that glaring gap. Still, Zimmerman also had a right to be where he was too. There is no damage to Martin other than the bullet wound and his knuckles, so it is hard to claim Zimmerman started the fight.
DeleteYes, Greg, I do see how it is conceivable tha RZ became the victim of a serious enough beat-down to warrant self-defense. But I don't see anything to indicate that's what actually happened. If he gets off on the "reasonable doubt" thing, he'll be another O.J., a murderer walking free. I know O.J.'s not walking free anymore, but you know what I mean.
DeleteThe reality is that for the defendant, every day in court is a bad day until an acquittal.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if, as Ms. Rao claims, Mr. Zimmerman's injuries were "very insignificant," I can only draw the conclusion that if a man broke his wife's nose, and cut the back of her head multiple times by forcing it into concrete, these "very insignificant" injuries would not justify lifetime disarmament of the husband, Lautenberrg notwithstanding, right?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, a life sentence of defenselessness is awfully harsh for someone who has caused only "very insignificant" harm, isn't it?