About This Blog
Listening to the likes of Sean Hannity, a person can come away with the idea that when Trayvon Martin confronted the stalking George Zimmerman that rainy night last year in Sanford, Fla.....that Trayvon was literally beating Zimmerman to death before the Neighborhood Watchman shot and killed the 17 year old, 158 pound, high schooler, with one hollow point bullet to the chest, pointblank.
Indeed, George Zimmerman's defense attorneys really have nothing else with which to save their client from jail time. Zimmerman's repeated lies to detectives about what transpired that fateful night should have shattered the 29 year-old's credibility with the jury.....and so all that's left is the claim that Zimmerman had to kill Trayvon, or at least shoot him, because Zimmerman thought his actual life was in danger. The self-defense claim.
Even though testimony in the trial depicted George Zimmerman as non-athletic and soft....one would expect, if Zimmerman's life was actually on the line that evening, physical evidence of the near-death beating Trayvon Martin had been delivering to the Neighborhood Watchman in the minute or so it took for the incident to begin....and end.
Again.....the Fox Lying Machine, to their shame, having sided with George Zimmerman, having become George Zimmerman's personal communications network, still insist on repeating the "head slamming on concrete" myth alongside the "ground and pound" description of Martin's response to being stalked that night while returning to his father's home in the neighborhood. Life threatening, Foxians declare....which justifies the lethal force Zimmerman used against the unarmed, smaller high school kid.
Now think about what the Zimmerman defense team, and their self-radicalized conservative media apologists, are trying to accomplish here. The "stand your ground" law, a law which legalizes murder, was actually waived by Zimmerman and his team, most likely because Zimmerman was the stalker, the instigator of the incident in question.
Instead, Zimmerman's legal team went straight to the self-defense, defense.....calculating that because witness accounts were sketchy and inconsistent, and whose voice was crying out, inconclusive.....the burden was on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman's life WASN'T on the line. Zimmerman stalked Martin, yes. Zimmerman instigated the tragic event by stalking Martin, yes. But, the defense argued, Martin attacked Zimmerman with such life-threatening ferocity that George Zimmerman had no choice but to use lethal force against the 17 year old.
Fear is subjective, of course.....but medical examiner reports usually aren't.....
Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.
The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”
Other than the gunshot wound, Trayvon Martin only had one other pertinent injury. A 1/8 inch-by-1/4 inch mark on his ring finger. This, with the medical examiner's testimony, suggests, although not conclusively, that Trayvon Martin did surprise the stalking Zimmerman with a sucker punch...which could have resulted in Martin getting on top of Zimmerman very briefly.
But what do you do with the medical examiner's words....."the injuries (to Zimmerman) were not life-threatening"....in fact, they were "very insignificant?" Not just "insignificant" but "very insignificant." Can objective evidence from the medical examiner simply be discounted in favor of the "feelings" of George Zimmerman at the time? If Zimmerman's life was not actually being threatened.....and how could it have been otherwise if Zimmerman's injuries were "very insignificant?"....is justice served by discounting the nature of those injuries and, instead, deferring to how George Zimmerman "felt"?
That brings us back to Florida's "stand your ground" law. Yes, I know, Zimmerman waived his appeal to "stand your ground".....but Zimmerman's defense team still used "stand your ground" rationale. It's the 'resonable fear' thing....
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
"imminent death or great bodily harm".....and the entirely subjective "reasonably believes". Isn't that Zimmerman's defense? George Zimmerman's story is that he feared for his life.....he "believed", he said, that his life was in grave danger. But was Zimmerman's claimed "belief" "reasonable?"
The medical examiner testified under oath, (something Zimmerman did not do), that injuries to Zimmerman were "very insignificant." If Zimmerman's injuries, the delivery of which allegedly led Zimmerman to his "belief" that his life was in imminent danger, were medically-speaking, "very insignificant".....how was Zimmerman's belief that his life was in imminent danger "reasonable?"
And if Zimmerman's claim of fear of death or grave bodily harm from Trayvon Martin is not "reasonable".....then shouldn't Mr. Zimmerman be found guilty of manslaughter?