Trayvon Martin Case

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening." ...

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified. ...

Dr. Rao is the first, and to my knowledge, the only direct evidence offered by the prosecution to contradict Z's assertion that he was reasonably in fear of his life. Rao, however, was not at the scene, did not see or examine Z at the time of the incident, and reached her conclusions about the injuries only from reviewing photos and videos after the fact.

Further, Rao's testimony conflicts with that of the EMT who examined Z at the scene. (And does not address in any way the testimony of Good that Z was on the ground with TM on top of him with Z yelling for help).

IMHO, much of Rao's testimony was simple conjecture in hindsight and was highlighted as such by the defense's cross exam. Here is what the Cross-X brought out:

- Rao admitted that Martin could have hit Zimmerman in the face more than one time.

- Rao said it is possible there could have been more than one blow to the concrete.

- Rao said the bruise to the right side of Zimmerman's head could be consistent with his head hitting concrete. She said it was a small bruise, but there was some swelling.

So, while I fully expect the prosecution to hang their hat on Rao's testimony and hope for biased, emotional mobs participants like G84C to ignore everything else presented on the issue, to me, it's the same speculative evidence that the prosecution has been presenting all along.

It's very possible that it happened as Rao said - one strike against the concrete caused the two injuries. It's also possible that it happened just as Z said it did and as the EMT opined - multiple strikes againat the concrete causing disorientation and reasonalbe fear for medical safety.

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

...

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent.

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

I don't think he is. I think he believes a real man "whoops yo' ass" if you bother him and f***' em if they start to lose - they shouldn't been bothering his ass.

Your welcome. I find the work by the lawyers in this matter fascinating.

I am also fascinated - and discouraged - by the ease with which some here are willing to ignore the requirements of the law to accomplish what they believe should be the "right" outcome and their failure to see this logic as anything more than an old style mob lynching.

Equally disconcerting to me is the belief of some here that, even if TM initiated the physical confrontation b/c Z followed (or stalked if you would like the more emotionally charged word) and aggressively verbally confronted him, TM would somehow be justified in attacking Z.

The rule of law is not dead in this country, but I firmly believe it is on life support.

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

Finally! Some sense!

Just read through prosecution's witnesses regarding Z's "wannabe cop" status. Again, tell me how putting an African-American law professor on the stand who clearly likes the defendant (He waved and said "Hey George" when he took the stand), gave him an A in his class, and says Z was "one of the smarter students", is helpful to the prosecution. I am missing that.

On top of that, on Cross-X, the professor gives the defense a gold mine of good stuff:

- Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries. "You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West. "No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

- "It’s fluid, the law [on self-defense] as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter.

- Carter says he taught his class: "When stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard, objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt." Carter also says part of self-defense is the individual's subjective feelings of facing death or "grievous bodily harm."

So, you put up a guy to testify about the applicable law who (1) is an African-American professional that likes your defendant and thinks highly of him and (2) opines on the law in a way that calls into question (by saying self-defense relies on subjective belief) the relevance of your medical expert's (Rao's) testimony about how, objectively and in-hind sight, Z should not have been reasonably in fear of his life.

Mind you, the prosecution fought to put this guy on the stand. I admit, I don't get it. Can someone from the pitchforks & torches mob inform me how Prof. Carter's testimony supported your belief that Z committed murder? Is it just - He studied law, he should have known better? He was a wannabe lawyer/cop? How does that alter the underlying speculative nature of the key legal elements of this case?

Today's running notes on the testimony:
Live blog: Was Zimmerman a 'wannabe cop?' | HLNtv.com (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/03/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-8)

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.