The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

I identify with Zimmy, in some respects.
That does not include his noble crime-fighting,
concerning which I have always been too lazy
(tho I can understand his willingness to endeavor
to protect the likes of Olivia from further burglaries).

Zimmy 's unfortunate physical condition has been
testimonially described at some length, on the record.
Mine is not as good as Zimmy 's; I 'm in my Golden Years.
I 'd have shot the suspect a lot faster, as soon as I possibly cud,
after he threw me down, pursuing his "ground & pound".
I empathize with Zimmy (tho I am nowhere near as nice
a guy as he has proven to be).

On the other hand, if I were verbally confronted in the street,
there is no chance that I 'd become violent. I 'd ignore the question
or I 'd answer it, but I 'd not even get angry, let alone brutal.

The suspect got what he deserved (regardless of age)
and we r all safer for not having a thug like that around.
I 'd not say the same thing about his brother,
who at least gives the appearance of being
a gentle, decent fellow.

I have little admiration for Mark O' Mara, Esq.,
whose loyalty I find to be very questionable,
in light of his conscious choice to subordinate
the interests of his client in homicide litigation
to his "respect" for the survivors of the criminal
who was grounding & pounding him when his client
defensively shot him.

That is to say that O' Mara shud have introduced
evidence of decedent 's use of marijuana.
O' Mara was also out-of-line in APOLOGIZING
for decedent's demise, thereby implicitly admitting
that his own client did anything rong.

Tho I join in the consensus that it is nearly inconceivable
that Zimmy will be convicted on this record, conviction
remains theoretically possible. If that actually happened,
then Mr. O' Mara 'd have to live with that blemish
on his professional reputation forever. When I was
a trial practitioner, my loyalty n my faithfulness
was only to my own client, as constrained by the law.

Zimmy was purportedly an Obama supporter.
If he is convicted, then at least we 'll have
one less leftist vote around.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

1) If you read the transcript (starting here, then continuing here and here), you will find that the medical examiner testified only about external injuries to the head. Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked her about internal injuries.

If neither asked about internal injuries then the jury shouldn't be considering them. Juries are only supposed to weigh the testimony that is actually presented to them.

3 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

1) If you read the transcript (starting here, then continuing here and here), you will find that the medical examiner testified only about external injuries to the head. Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked her about internal injuries.

parados wrote:

If neither asked about internal injuries then the jury shouldn't be considering them.
Juries are only supposed to weigh the testimony that is actually presented to them.

It is very RARE, that we agree, Mr. Parados!

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

By contrast, it is well within the realm of reasonable doubt to hypothesize that Zimmerman suffered a concussion

where in the world do you get that idea?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If neither asked about internal injuries then the jury shouldn't be considering them. Juries are only supposed to weigh the testimony that is actually presented to them.

This witness wasn't asked. Other witnesses were. I was talking about this witness because Revelette brought her up.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked her about internal injuries.

that means 1 of 2 things (most likely)

1. there's nothing to talk about - and both sides recognize that

2. both sides are idiots

I'm going with Option 1.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Thomas wrote:
By contrast, it is well within the realm of reasonable doubt to hypothesize that Zimmerman suffered a concussion

where in the world do you get that idea?

In the cross-examination of physician-assistant Folgate, which I cited and posted a link to several pages ago.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

that means 1 of 2 things (most likely)

1. there's nothing to talk about - and both sides recognize that

2. both sides are idiots

I'm going with Option 1.

Perhaps you missed my post just before yours, but the correct answer is:

3. There is testimony from other witnesses to this point.

1 Reply

Moving on.

Right now they are in recess to go over jury instruction which include lesser charges.

Will George Zimmerman face more charges?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But let me inquire about your concept of reasonable doubt. By your standards, when has a defender raised a reasonable doubt? And when has a prosecutor proved his hypothesis, that the defendant is guilty of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Simply establishing that something could happen is not enough for reasonable doubt, IMO. Purple monkeys could fly out of my butt, but they are unlikely to do so.

Someone could be seriously injured even though the wounds look superficial. (And, indeed, were deemed superficial by multiple medical personnel.) But I think it's unlikely.

I haven't watched the trial, so I really only reply to items posted here.

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
I know people who have suffered concussions, and they didn't pull out guns and start shooting people.

Did they suffer their concussions in fights with people that they believed were "up to no good" and "on drugs or something"?

His belief that Martin was "up to no good" and "on drugs or something" is irrelevant.

The question is, would a reasonable person fear for their life and was his action proportionate. IMO, the action was wildly disproportionate.

As for the "head being pounded against the pavement," Zimmerman keeps his hair in a buzz cut. Do you know how hard it is to get a grip on someone's head when they don't have any hair?

The whole fight scenario just doesn't hold up under scrutiny, IMO.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Except the testimony is such that there are no symptoms of concussion when examining Zimmerman. Zimmerman doesn't present having any symptoms of concussion in his discussion of the injuries.

Quote:

FOLGATE: And again, the story that he told me as his head being struck against the ground so he did complain of head trauma but from what I'm looking at based on my physical exam and doing his neurological testing everything appeared to be intact and because of that I didn't order the additional testing.

DE LA RIONDA: Because if you had noted something, you would have ordered additional testing?

FOLGATE: At the time, exactly. I also mentioned that what are the signs to look for should something like that occur, and if that were to occur, then additional testing would be ordered.

Any speculation of concussion would be just speculation.

edit - "head trauma" refers to the small abrasions on the back of the head from the previous testimony.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Perhaps you missed my post just before yours, but the correct answer is:

3. There is testimony from other witnesses to this point.

if neither side follows up on it - there is nothing there that will benefit either side

1 Reply

The judge agreed to the manslaughter charge, now the state is adding third degree felony charges because Trayvon Martin was a minor. The last is kinda new.

2 Replies

@revelette,

"please, please convict him of SOMETHING, the mob is watching!"

the egg on the face if the Florida "justice" system keeps building up.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I think you make too much of the mob thing because it suits your narrative.

In any case, lesser charges are common, nothing usual about it. The child abuse part might be a stretch, but third degree murder charges are also common in murder cases from what I understand.

1 Reply

@revelette,

and yet you offer no other explaination for adding charges at the end of the trial. if the state wants to make a go at getting zimmerman for child abuse then they should put on a new trial. child abuse charges were never intended for this kind of situation either, this is rank desperation to get something, and it is abuse of zimmerman by the state of Florida.

1 Reply

@parados,

You wrote,

Quote:

If neither asked about internal injuries then the jury shouldn't be considering them. Juries are only supposed to weigh the testimony that is actually presented to them.

That's correct! It doesn't pay to speculate or imagine things not presented during trial; they are without any basis.

If they start including what "might have been if they considered this and that," they'll never resolve anything!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It is not abuse if it is common practice to include lesser charges along with the main charge. From my understanding from watching legal analyst yesterday you do not have talk about the lesser charges during the trail.

1 Reply

@revelette,

sure, but child abuse is not a lessor charge to murder. child abuse is a charge for when a child has been injured but is still alive.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It is somehow connected to the third degree felony murder charge is my understanding.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know