<p>She did say it was consistant with having his head slammed one time into the concrete, but on cross did admit that it could have been from more than one contact.
After being sucker punched resulting in having your nose broken, having your head slammed into the concrete even once, having the person who began the physical confrontation straddling you, on top of you, and with the upper hand to inflict more physical injury, you can’t imagine someone being fearful for their life?</p>
<p>"^ Whoa, the Prosecution has introduced evidence that GZ had reasonable cause to shoot TM? When did that happen?"</p>
<p>NewHope, I believe that Zimmerman’s claim that he was in fear of his life/serious injury is evidence supporting his claim of self-defense. The jury might consider it strong evidence or weak evidence, or worthless, but this is all that the defense has to do to force the prosecutors to disprove the claim. If the prosecution did not introduce the videotaped interviews, the defense would not be able to use them in lieu of Zimmerman’s testifying. That would have left the defense in a bad situation, as Zimmerman would not be likely to stand up well to cross-examination. The prosecution must have wanted to put these interviews into evidence badly, because of the various problems/inconsistencies/disagreement with physical evidence.</p>
<p>A prima facie case of self defense under Florida law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nysmile—GZ stated his head was repeatedly slammed into the concrete.</p>
<p>I’m not a Fla. lawyer either, nymom(1346) but my understanding of the law is that if evidence of self-defense is introduced, then it is up to the prosecution to convince people otherwise. As I understand it, the defense does not have to introduce that self-defense into the case. So like you, I think now that it’s introduced the burden is on prosecution. I’m not so sure they would have had to put GZ on the stand if prosecution had not introduced them, but now it’s a moot point anyway.</p>
<p>Did the Chief Mediacal Examiner say that she had examined/treated GZ? When did that examination/treatment occur? Was she expressing an opinion from the images off the cell phone and police video cams?</p>
<p>Well, the prosecution has to go with what it has.</p>
<p>GZ’s defense attorneys have been clubbing most of the prosecutor’s witnesses like baby seals so far. This trial is over.</p>
<p>Some of the confusion regarding the self-defense issue may be in the wording used.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This wasn’t the prosecution’s intent when they introduced the evidence. They were trying to make their case. The problem is that when you introduce (or will introduce) evidence which contains photographic or video evidence of a bloody nose, cuts on his head, etc. you’ve done the defense’s job for them. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter that the prosecution was using this evidence to show GZ’s demeanor or whatever their purpose was. GZ’s defense team need only say “Look at the photos/videos in Exhibit XX” to show he was defending himself from something. </p>
<p>Read the statute again. Defense only needs a minimal amount of evidence to claim self-defense. The prosecution must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome that claim. If the defense can use the prosecution’s own evidence for their side, it wouldn’t surprise me if the jurors don’t see that reaching the level of reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Jury trials are always interesting since they reach such varied results especially on justification for the use of deadly force. </p>
<p>Here’s a recent jury acquittal for a guy shooting and killing an escort off cragislist who refused to provide services or return the $150. [Jury</a> acquits escort shooter - San Antonio Express-News](<a href=“Jury acquits escort shooter”>Jury acquits escort shooter)</p>
<p>never mind, I think I get it now (deleting previous thought on how strange it is to have medical examiner testifying as to Zimmerman’s injuries, since her job is normally to examine dead people to determine cause of death - she is being cross examined by defense and looking only at post-incident pictures of Zimmerman, correct… other doctors may be presented by defense as to their examination of his actual injuries)??</p>
<p>07DAD…Are you aware of any provisions within the self-defense statute regarding anything along the lines of “response in kind” or use of excessive force?</p>
<p>Take with a grain of salt, heard from someone who worked in law enforcement/security for several decades. </p>
<p>It’s common for police officers that are questioned after they had to shoot someone, to claim that they remember shooting only a few times. When they were actually so pumped up on adrenaline that they didn’t realize they emptied a 12 round magazine. </p>
<p>According to the police officers who talked to him immediately afterwards he was pretty shaken up, as anyone would be. I’m not giving him a free pass for some of his questionable story, but it should be considered how much trauma such a situation is for anyone.</p>
<p>Mannix… I imagine when the defense presents it’s case they will call their own medical expert who will testify that GZ’s injuries could be consistent with more than one (i.e. repeated) blows against the concrete. It’s the theme of the whole trial so far. Anything the prosecution has presented so far can probably be counteracted by the defense team. That means the jury will have to agree on whose version of the same evidence is more compelling, which leads many here to lean towards a hung jury or an acquittal…at least on a Murder 2 charge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess that would depend on how hard his head was heating the concrete…obviously he is resisting his head banging to the ground.</p>
<p>thanks Wolverine - figured it out after reading a bit more – she’s only looking at pictures and giving medical opinion on cross.</p>
<p>Just about everything the prosecution has presented so far has worked out for the defense. This ME was testifying to what she saw in pictures. She said it was from one blow. GZ attorney got her to admit it could have been 3 or 6 or 8 blows. The detective yesterday said he felt Zimmerman was telling the truth. Just about every witness has in some way corroborated GZ’s story. Watching the trial, you’d almost think they were defense witnesses and not prosecution witnesses.</p>
<p>geeps, I think the prosecution’s theory is that if your head is being “pounded” on concrete so as to make you think it’s going to “explode” the contact would be enough to leave some mark.</p>
<p>[Zimmerman</a> Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens’ Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee](<a href=“http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539380/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html]Zimmerman”>http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539380/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html)</p>
<p>Just because someone’s skull isn’t split completely wide open doesn’t mean someone didn’t suffer serious brain trauma or fear being killed or suffering serious injury. Lots of pro athletes suffering head injuries and concussions don’t show signs of serious injury until years later. If GZ got doughpopped in the face with a fist or suffered a few strikes of his head on concrete sidewalk and feared for his life…?</p>
<p>Thank you, raiders83, for that graphic example of how nutty the right wingers have gotten over this case. Maybe I’ll anoint myself as a “Really real citizen’s grand jury” and indict GZ’s brother for being a jerk. That’ll show 'em!</p>