<p>in a sense it was, razor. It was the last part. Further speculation, yes, I said speculation, for those who say gz didn’t appear to be so hurt that they find it hard to believe he believed he might be in serious danger- here is the speculation. Could gz’s injuries have been limited because of the action he took; and that he may very well have been far more seriously hurt had he not stopped it? Isn’t it reasonable to believe gz would have been injured even further? There is no evidence to indicate TM thought GZ had had enough, and so was walking away…</p>
<p>When I listen to the 911 calls, there are so many “if onlys” - the most important one being if only GZ hadn’t followed TM when TM ran. If only the dispatcher had been even more adamant about GZ not looking for TM. It is clear on the tape that GZ is searching and moving around and isn’t waiting for police as suggested. The dispatcher should have asked again if he was still following and told him more forcefully to plant himself and wait for the police.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not, razor. Did you listen to the ME’s testimony from yesterday? She said his injuries were “insignificant.” A broken nose and a couple of cuts/bumps on the back of the head are not butt-kicking injuries. Even GZ didn’t think they were serious enough to seek medical help.</p>
<p>younghoss, I am curious to know why you think TM’s school records have any relevance to this case.</p>
<p>I am surprised by the court’s ruling permitting Zimmermans’ education background. It’s irrelevant. When an instant decision must be made as GZ did, there is no reason to believe he reflected on his course work and do a complex analysis and then reach a decision about whether or not to shoot Martin. GZ got an A in a course taught by a lawyer. The defense is using the lawyer witness to establish the defense’s interpretation of self defense. They are making their legal arguments that would otherwise be closing statements through this witness. Pretty clever.</p>
<p>The prosecutors shot themselves in the foot again bringing in witnesses. Attorney West is giving jurors instructions on self defense laws now while questioning JAG attorney who taught GZ in school course. Can’t believe judge is allowing this.</p>
<p>sally…He got hit butt kicked by a 17 year old boy…</p>
<p>One could go farther and say, “He had to shoot him in order to win”…but…you know.</p>
<p>I too question the relevance of GZ’s educational background. He was not operating in any official capacity resulting from professional education or training and nevertheless got mediocre or failing grades in most of his classes (except the litigation class).</p>
<p>First of all, I did not say I “think they are relevant”. I also do not know if I feel gz’s schooling is either, but the judge has made that decision.</p>
<p>If tm’s school records are permitted: What I do feel though, is that if he has been a wonderful student, getting A’s and a joy to be around, that might favorably affect some people’s opinion on him. Similarly, if he were a troublesome student, such as having attendance/discipline problems or suspensions, it could lead people to think he’s a troublemaker. Either of those opinions could affect the jury’s thinking on what may have happened that tragic day.</p>
<p>My thought is only that what ever argument persuaded the judge to believe gz’s previous school records are properly admissible, then I would expect the same reasoning to apply to tm’s school records.</p>
<p>Niquii, I guess some of us disagree on the definition of “butt kicking” (both in and out of the courtroom).</p>
<p>Why do you think GZ declined treatment for his injuries if they were so severe?</p>
<p>I’ll have to listen to her testimony again to get the exact words, but she said something like I sort of heard him say get off.</p>
<p>She either heard him say get off or she didn’t. If I were a juror, I would discount this bit of testimony.</p>
<p>younghoss, I get what you are saying but think the fundamental difference is that GZ is on trial and TM is not.</p>
<p>possible explanations for his declining treatment were discussed pages and pages ago, Sally.</p>
<p>What if both of them were doing mostly what most have testified so far? GZ genuinely had suspicions and was afraid that TM was someone that was up to no good. He followed him (which was not illegal), ran after him thinking that he was going to do something bad. TM saw that he was being stalked and followed for some period of time, was afraid. They finally caught up to each other, TM was scared not sure what to do and thought he probably was in trouble so decided he had enough and was going to confront the follower. GZ was scared too and probably was still thinking this was a bad kid coming at me. They fought, and TM was better on the very quick fight. Zimmerman, under all the confusion, reached for his gun and shot TM.</p>
<p>GZ shot him because he was being hit but he did follow him with mistaken preconceived notion, and TM was a kid that thought he was defending himself from danger. Who was the aggressor? Chalked it up as a terrible unfortunate event, or GZ should have some culpability to the result of his actions?</p>
<p>Actually there are some Florida cases on what aspects of the deceased’s conduct before the encounter can be introduced at the trial where the defendant asserts self defense on the basis that the victim was the first aggressor. </p>
<p>One case noted that the trial court should be aware of the possibility of undue prejudice and careful in assessing whether to allow this type evidence in UNLESS the prosecution opened the door with testimony on how the victim had a reputation as “peaceful and non-confrontational.” So far, it does not appear that the prosecution has opened that door.</p>
<p>“Listening to the tape of the screams has been the hardest part for me. It sounds to me like someone begging for his life.”</p>
<p>Yep, just your typical everyday “Good guy with a gun” fending off a child armed with candy.</p>
<p>but that isn’t the whole pic, sally(post 1532.) Tm’s behavior is much of the heart of the trial. Did he attack Gz? Did gz fear serious body harm because of tm’s attack?</p>
<p>The prosecutions claim is about how gz attacked and killed tm. A part of their evidence they feel, is showing what schooling he had that may show his past behavior, state of mind, and thereby may have influenced his behavior that time.
The defense claim is that tm attacked gz and gz used self-defense to protect himself. Doesn’t the same logic apply that tm’s previous school records might show his past behavior, state of mind, and affected his behavior that time?
Repeating, I’m not sure either’s past behavior is so relevant, or past schooling, but it seems to me if one is ruled relevant then the other should be too.</p>
<p>To NH- has it been claimed TM was defending himself by throwing Skittles at GZ? I hadn’t heard that claim. I thought it was much more physical than that. 2 people don’t have to square off with guns like “High Noon” for one to be in danger of serious harm</p>
<p>So if a woman came in to file charges against her husband for beating her and she had the same injuries as GZ should they be discounted as insignificant? What if she ended up killing him because of fear for her life? What if she taunted him verbally before he struck her, he broke hef nose and lacerated her head in a couple places and she managed to shoot him in self defense? Do we discount her statements because of the extent of the trauma. I don’t think the actual trauma and the fear are necessarily related.</p>
<p>“Listening to the tape of the screams has been the hardest part for me. It sounds to me like someone begging for his life.”</p>
<p>Yep, that’s what a child sounds like when he knows he’s about to be killed for “walking in a hoodie.”</p>
<p>^The defense will have a medical expert that will say that the injuries are significant, you can bet on it.</p>