<p>If any of you can and care to read Jenkins v. State, 942 So.2d 910, it does shed some light on the legal issues. The following was from the overview, not the case itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One thing is clear from Jenkins. The prosecution must present evidence that it is beyond reasonable doubt that TM DID NOT ACT IN SELF DEFENSE.</p>
<p>Evidence introduced by the prosecution that is consistent with the defense appears to establish on appeal that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you look at Zimmerman’s nose, it looks like TM knocked the crap out of him. TM should have had some marks or bruising on his fist after that punch. But if TM has had experience training MMA, wouldn’t that make his fists tougher? I think it is a good question as to why there is not more evidence of punching on TM’s hands.</p>
<p>“Police offer says he observed that back of Zimmerman’s jacket was wetter than the front and had grass on it.”</p>
<p>I thought the “feared for my life” was due to GZ’s head being bashed against the concrete sidewalk.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Has the Autopsy Report been introduced into evidence and read to the Jury?</p>
<p>The Autopsy report indicates an abrasion on a knuckle on the left hand and a scar on the knuckle of the right hand.</p>
<p>I think Zimmerman told Police that his body was on the grass and his head was being shoved against the sidewalk.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Do you mean Z instead of TM?</p>
<p>In general, it is hard to prove a negative.</p>
<p>OOOPS!!! Yep, that GZ did not act in self defense.</p>
<p>You are so right about proving a negative.</p>
<p>“I think Zimmerman told Police that his body was on the grass and his head was being shoved against the sidewalk.”</p>
<p>OK, let’s see if we have this right. GZ is laying in the grass with his head on the sidewalk. TM is either raining blows down on GZ or holding GZ’s head with both hand and smashing it on the concrete … perhaps both. GZ is feeling faint from the beating. Thinking he’s at risk of dying he shoots TM in the heart. TM is surprised. He stands up, staggers a few steps away, and falls on his face. Rain seeps under TM’s body and washes all the DNA away. </p>
<p>Is that it? (I guess “Dead man Standing up and Walking” is a real life event. Who knew?)</p>
<p>From John Good’s testimony today:</p>
<p>He said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in “mixed martial arts position” he later described to police as a “ground and pound”. He also said he saw “arm movements going downward.”</p>
<p>“The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct? He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?” asked (defense atty) Mr. O’Mara.</p>
<p>Later, (prosecutor)de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term “ground and pound” before he did.<br>
“It’s possible,” said Goode.
The prosecution also honed in on the Good’s statement that (my emphasis) Good COULD NOT CONFIRM THE PERSON ON TOP WAS HITTING THE OTHER PERSON.
“Correct,” said Good.</p>
<p>Good also testified that he did NOT see the person on top smashing the other person’s head into the sidewalk, as Zimmerman claims Martin did.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Has the prosecution made this argument? Or the defense?</p>
<p>I had an interesting discussion on physics with my son just now on this.</p>
<p>“OK, let’s see if we have this right. GZ is laying in the grass with his head on the sidewalk. TM is either raining blows down on GZ or holding GZ’s head with both hand and smashing it on the concrete … perhaps both. GZ is feeling faint from the beating. Thinking he’s at risk of dying he shoots TM in the heart. TM is surprised. He stands up, staggers a few steps away, and falls on his face. Rain seeps under TM’s body and washes all the DNA away.”</p>
<p>The body is found face-down 7-10 feet away from the side-walk and with head pointing towards the side-walk. I heard an interview with a doctor that TM died instantly because the bullet pierced a major artery of the heart, getting up and staggering around is unlikely. He also would not have been able to utter any word because the lungs collapsed instantly, no air pressure in the lung means no sound is possible coming out of his mouth contrary to what GZ said in his statement.</p>
<p>The gun holster is behind on his back side, how does GZ reach back under his own butt to grab his gun if TM was on top of him hitting away and how does TM see the gun and was reaching for it before GZ finally shot him as described by GZ statement to the police?</p>
<p>07DAD, I see your point, GZ is going to get off. In the future, either you shoot first or be totally complicit in any contact with someone that is checking you out and you are not sure if he is a friend or a foe. Actually, to be really sure, just shoot first.</p>
<p>For those of you watching the testimony, did Good say at what point the gunshot occurred?</p>
<p>Good was on the phone when he heard the gunshot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When a police officer testified he asked GZ if he was armed and GZ said yes and then lifted his right arm upwards so that his coat would rise and expose the weapon on GZ’s right side.</p>
<p>Interesting stuff on using lethal force in self-defense. There’s no copyright on this page so I reproduced several paragraphs. It looks like this is an overall messy area.</p>
<p>Self-defense, lethal force:</p>
<p>The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.</p>
<p>The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.</p>
<p>One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.</p>
<p>U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that “although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right.” Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.</p>
<p>Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.</p>
<p>[Self</a> Defense Law](<a href=“http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm]Self”>Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist)</p>
<p>I’m still missing something. Where was GZ when he feared for his life? If he was on the sidewalk, how did he and TM get to where TM’s body was found? If he shot TM where the body was found, how does the concrete head-bashing come into his decision?</p>
<p>“Faultless victim” could be a sticky point.</p>
<p>Unless there was the threat of being beaten to death with a bag of skittles.</p>
<p>Or the threat of being blinded by iced tea.</p>
<p>Maybe if you shoot someone on top of you, you then have to crawl out from under and they fall face down? But wouldn’t you then be covered in blood?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The only physical explanation that I can see is that his head was above the ground and he was hit in the nose which forced his head to the ground where it would feel like his head was bashed on the ground. Son said that work = force (dot product) distance. If distance is zero, then work is zero. So his head wouldn’t have been on the ground for him to feel that his head was being bashed on the ground.</p>
<p>
Actually, the use of the term “my n…ah” (not “n…er”) as a salutation signifying close friendship between the individuals does not carry any racial significance (according to my son’s patient explanation to a dottering oldster - i.e., me.) My reaction was pretty much what I would expect from the other posters here (horrified) but I’m not young. I think the cultural impact of rap music, star athletes, performers, etc., has a greater influence on the norms of young folks that we adults may appreciate - at least when we’re not around. </p>
<p>And the fact that TM used that term to refer to a man he seemed to be aware was not black indicates to me that the term (and whether it was “n…ah” or n…er" is hard to tell) didn’t signify anything beyond “dude.”</p>
<p>07DAD, if your analysis of self defense was correct, anytime a homicide was committed without witnesses no one could ever be convicted. But they are. To begin with, self defense doesn’t have to be negated unless the defendant presents evidence sufficent to establish a prima facie case for it. If that happens, the jury is still entitled to draw inferences from the evidence which does exist - in this case, GZ’s armed pursuit of TM while referring to him as a"suspect" and a “$#%#@punk” which all tend to negate the mental state of self defense. And that’s what this case is about - GZ’s mental state.</p>
<p>All the obsessing over each witness and what they’re testimony “proves” is sort of amateurish. It doesn’t really matter who was on top of who, when. GZ didn’t have the right to kill TM unless GZ had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. In other words, if you follow someone and they turn around and punch you in the nose, you’re not free to pull out a gun and kill them. If that’s the jury’s assessment of what happened, a guilty verdict would be appropriate, and the evidence that’s coming forward is sufficient (under California law, anyway) to sustain a conviction if that’s how the jury sees it.</p>