George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9

[William N]

If that had happened, IMO, GZ would have been just another statistic.

And if TM had been arrested as GZ's killer, there would have been no national publicity IMO.

 

[Nezumi]

The fact is, it did not happen. The "head slams" were not sufficient to put him in a coma and did not kill him. MO

And the only reason that GZ was not put into a coma or killed was because he was able to stop his attacker before that level of injury or death could be inflicted on him.

ETA: IMO

 

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

This isn't the toxicology report. It's the autoposy--say to see separate document which I don't think has been fully released (or is redacted). JMO--Does anyone know about this?

Yes. There are some people that cvlaim TM was on drank/sizzurp/... no way to tell without seeing the full toxicology report.

 

[sacrablue]

And the only reason that GZ was not put into a coma or killed was because he was able to stop his attacker before that level of injury or death could be inflicted on him.

Oh really? IMO

 

[costalpilot]

The expert is quite good, and Yet, he's made ONE outstanding mistake, IMO.
He has G U E S S E D that the sidewalk was A Perfectly Flat Surface ...in order to arrive at ALL of his conclusions....but as the first ME already testified, the surface was NOT flat....there were indentations, as well burs / spurs or whatever you wish to call the inconsistancies in a pavement.

Thus this witness' comments are not consistant with the surface. IMO

the presence of indentations doesn't change the flatness. of the sidewalk.

i dont believe this is an opinion.

the sidewalk, like many sidewalks, is flat. FLAT does does preclude distinguishing markings, indentations...etc.

if you want to know what flat means:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flat

 

[gxm]

The fact is, it did not happen. The "head slams" were not sufficient to put him in a coma and did not kill him. MO

The fact is that an assailant who uses "head slams" on his victim is using deadly force. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[Mollyandme]

can someone please explain to me what the states version of events is as supported by the evidence they presented during their case in chief (not what they said in opening statements)? i really am interested in knowing because I couldn't connect any dots during their presentation at all

 

[Zuri]

I have received multiple concussions. the medical people were mistaken not to supervise his potential for concussion, imo.

plus I was a medic in the air force back in the day. there is NO WAY to tell if a person is concussed by looking at them, or by any rudimentary examinations. the only way to rule out one is by an rmi, imo.

the medical people can help with this. its been a long time.

My daughters have sustained concussions after falling from their horses. They had on helmets, the best money can buy. They exhibited confusion, repetitive speech, asking the same questions over and over, etc. they had no difficulty motor wise. They were taken to the ER and they had CAT scans to rule out bleeding in the brain. Their symptoms were typical of grade 2-3 concussions. A grade 1 concussion is barely noticeable. The symptoms may include headache, nausea, vomiting which resolve rapidly. CAT scans areusually not done for Grade 1 concussions. HTH IMPO

 

[Karmady]

The expert is quite good, and Yet, he's made ONE outstanding mistake, IMO.
He has G U E S S E D that the sidewalk was A Perfectly Flat Surface ...in order to arrive at ALL of his conclusions....but as the first ME already testified, the surface was NOT flat....there were indentations, as well burs / spurs or whatever you wish to call the inconsistancies in a pavement.

Thus this witness' comments are not consistant with the surface. IMO

The witness did discuss the punctate wounds and the type of surface that would cause them. He even compared it to a piece of wood, which would not cause such wounds.

 

[mdana]

Never go to your house and family with a suspicious person or persons following you. IMO

If you are afraid, don't go to a secure location that you are familiar, stay or go to somewhere you are less knowledgeable of your surroundings. Go out into the dark and confront someone you don't know, who could be armed or have accomplices. Impeccable advice.

MOO

 

[SassyMom]

Do any of the posters here believe that it is always wrong to kill, for any reason? I'm not suggesting that the pro-prosecution folks believe that, just asking if anyone here does. I saw a person-on-the-street interview where several folks stated just that. "Well, they'll just have to kill me, then."

 

[Nezumi]

Oh really? IMO

Yes, really. IMO

 

[lisasalinger]

Does anyone have an answer to the above question? Thanks

If my memory is working today, I believe I heard that he was on day 7 of a 10 day visit. I'll look now to see if I can back that up.

IMO

 

[EquallyDivided]

Oh really? IMO

Really. Any single blow could have caused a coma. I don't believe TM was stroking his hair during this time.

IMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The way I treat possible concussion is to not allow victim to sleep the night after injury regardless of symptoms. IMO

That is not actually concussion protocol. They are allowed to sleep and often don't need to be awakened even..

Based on ER advice and my own concussions..

 

[Mahouston69]

BBM

That is not the law IMO. You can't just assault/shoot/kill someone because they approach you or even ask you a question.

Once again, the notion that an unarmed person is not capable of hurting/killing someone simply because they are unarmed is fallacy IMO.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

 

[Karmady]

Does anyone have an answer to the above question? Thanks

a few days. jmo

 

[georgiagirl]

If it was the case I am thinking about it was in KC's Westport district. A black guy (Stanford Griswold) and his gf were accosted by a white guy (Brian Euston) and ended up killing BE. BE was extremely drunk (0.387) and extremely talkative, and SG tried numerous times to get away from the drunk guy. Eventually, SG punched BE and BE died from striking the pavement. The punch was not deemed lethal enough on its own to kill BE, his level of inebriation contributed to his death. SG was acquitted. I think this was a another terrible tragedy of two people misunderstanding each other resulting in death.

http://www.pitch.com/plog/archives/...swold-found-not-guilty-in-brian-eustons-death

That is a different case. The two men in this case were white and it was the attacker that ended up getting stabbed in self defense as he was on top of the other guy pounding him. He was convicted at the first trial because the blood from the stab was on the BACK of the stabbers shirt. He said it was because he quickly was able to flip himself over after stabbing. The only witness (gf of the attacker) lied about what happened. She later recanted and at his second trial they were able to show how the blood ended up on the back of his shirt via computer animation recreating the fight.

 

[Donnareit]

I won't be replying to any more opinion posts.. Evidence discussions, fact discussions or testimony yes.. But I find more and more opinion based on nothing but opinion and no facts.

I am interested in the case and where it leads not where people THINK it should lead.


Justice.. I want justice and a verdict based on law.

OMO

I'm with you, Scarlett, but IMO finding justice based on law is no small feat. Often I am disappointed with the justice our legal system metes out. Too many times retribution is equated with justice when restoration is what should be called for. Sometimes restoration is impossible, but accepting responsibility could be a start.
Adversarial legal systems start from a point of denial just to get into court. The high stakes of punishment and renumeration further divides defendants from the facts. Enter expensive advocates and experts, alienate victims, confound communities, and politicize the potential outcomes until truth is not even a byproduct let alone the goal and there you have it.
So often the jury becomes the whipping boy for all our frustrations. How I wish we could redefine justice to mean the accomplishment of peace and harmony so that ALL the wounds created could be bound up; for there is always suffering left on both sides IT SEEMS TO ME.
Law is tangled in words; justice seeks clarity and meaning. So far nothing is beyond doubt in this case. So I do hope and pray that when the decision is rendered here we will all accept it as the best that could be done in this tragic, tragic circumstance.
:truce: My soapbox will now be turned over to whomever wants it.

 

[mdana]

A gun, especially if visible- predicates the entire "fearful" atmosphere regardless of male or female. In an area where there have been burglaries- ALL residents and guests would be apprehensive about random young men or women following them for a full five minutes around corners and getting out of their vehicle to "see where you went" and follow down the dog path behind you toward your home. Your scenario is not really compatible. If anyone was confronted because of their appearance it was Trayvon.

IMO

cityslick is writing about gender bias impacting posters opinions of the situation. IMO