Subscribe
Notify of
163 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Tom:

Testifying for the prosecution at Zimmerman’s trial, Medical Examiner Valerie Rao said she reviewed Zimmerman’s medical records and 36 pictures of his injuries taken at the police station after the fight.

“They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant,” Rao told the Seminole County criminal court jury.
….
In court on Tuesday, medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman’s injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete.

Rao? There is no one with two grey cells bumping together than thinks she was a good witness for the defense.
Then there’s this:

Channel 4’s learned that Rao actually has a history of complaints dating back 10 years, while she was Medical Examiner for Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion and Sumter counties. Dr. Rao was the Medical Examiner there from 2000 to 2003.

Channel 4 uncovered the minutes from the Medical Examiner’s Commission meeting on May 15, 2003, that revealed concerns about Rao from funeral homes, organ donor organizations and law enforcement agencies.

In the minutes officers expressed disapproval of Dr. Rao’s “propensity to classify virtually all prison deaths as homicides, and lack of expertise by office personnel in the management of crime scene investigations.”

http://www.news4jax.com/news/more-complaints-on-jacksonville-medical-examiner-dr-valerie-rao/-/475880/20640256/-/rurvpcz/-/index.html

It is the responsibility of the ME to make sure that all evidence from a crime scene is preserved. You know, simple stuff like preserving the DNA on clothing, which was destroyed when Trayvon Martin’s clothing was placed in an improper bag, and bagging the hands of the deceased to maintain any DNA evidence that might be present, which was not done.

Now, I asked you for medical expertise, which a detective certainly isn’t, and no where can you provide any medical expert that will make the claim that there will be no future medical problems due to head trauma. If you think you can, find them. Or maybe you should just talk to the doctors that are treating former NFL players.

What a bizarre expectation. It’s not against the law to walk outside, is it? But somehow you feel it’s proper to equate the decision of TM to do something completely within his rights as an American citizen to the decisions of GZ to suspect, follow and shoot him.

No, it is not against the law to walk outside. It is also NOT against the law to follow someone. Provide me with the prosecution testimony that shows “following” is illegal in the State of Florida.

I don’t have to defend my claim via the Florida law, because i never cited the Florida statute in the first place. In case you’re unfamiliar, the words “stalk” has a non-Florida statute definition. Merriam defines it as “to pursue quarry or prey stealthily”. Your welcome for the vocabulary tutorial.

Unfortunately for you, the dictionary is not admissible evidence in a court of law. Only state statute is. Your argument, as usual, is weak. I can just see you in a trial setting, Tom, addressing a jury; “You see, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant was stalking and here is what the Merriam dictionary says about that.” You would be laughed out of the court room.

Tom
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN did not appoint himself, he was willing to help when ask,
you like to twist the facts like the PROSECUTORS WHO HAD NOTHING TO FIND.
SHAME ON YOU.

People have died from as little as ONE blow to the head……

Bees 52.. TOM is a LIB.. it’s always SOME ONE ELSE’S fault, when one of THEIRS screws up….

@Greg:

Witness the fact that an unarmed teenager who was simply going about his business in that neighborhood is now dead.

Were you there that night? Perhaps you can offer proof of exactly what “business” Trayvon Martin was going about?

Unarmed? Certainly not. Trayvon Martin was armed with the weapons that he was quite familiar with; his fists. And he used them. And if you think fists are not considered a weapon, I suggest you research FBI murder stats where “fists” are listed as a cause of murder, hence making them a weapon.

RETIRE05
THAT’S WHY SHE COULD NOT LOOK AT THE LAWYER IN THE FACE,
now I know why I thought she stink,

@retire05, #55:

Were you there that night? Perhaps you can offer proof of exactly what “business” Trayvon Martin was going about?

An where were you?

What happens to all of that “innocent until proven guilty” attitude I’ve seen so much of around here, the moment focus shifts to the shooting victim? Suddenly a presumption is being made that the person in question is guilty as hell. Of something other than being there dead on the sidewalk, still wearing his headphones and having a dangerous packet of Skittles in his pocket, surely. ..

@Greg:

An where were you?

Since I was obviously not in Florida, or at the scene of the crime, it is immaterial where I was.

What happens to all of that “innocent until proven guilty” attitude I’ve seen so much of around here,

It still exists. That is why the burden of proof of a crime being committed is up to the prosecution. Now, perhaps you can show me where Bernie de La Rionda, and the rest of the prosecution team, proved,

without a reasonable doubt,

that George Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2?

the moment focus shifts to the shooting victim? Suddenly a presumption is being made that the person in question is guilty as hell. Of something other than being there dead on the sidewalk, still wearing his headphones and having a dangerous packet of Skittles in his pocket, surely. ..

You still want to portray Trayvon Martin as some angelic child who could not have possibly thrown the first blow. You see, you want to ignore Florida law; the law that says it is not the why blows were thrown, but who threw the first blow, that is responsible for a physical confrontation.

Answer these questions:

do you believe that Trayvon Martin had plenty of time to get to Brandi Green’s townhome where he could have called 911 and reported that he was being followed by someone?

do you think George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin BEFORE he was punched in the face by Trayvon?

do you believe that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, throwing blows MMA style?

do you believe that a man almost 30, considered clinically obese, is any match for a well-muscled 17 year old man?

do you believe that having your head bashed into a concrete sidewalk would cause you to believe that you were in physical harm’s way?

@retire05:

Now, I asked you for medical expertise,

And that’s what I gave you. The woman is a Doctor and the medical examiner for three counties. It’s not my problem that you don’t like her testimony, therefore your tiresome mental script forces you to dismiss her credentials. Next time, if you don’t want me to produce the sworn testimony of a medical expert, don’t ask for it.

Provide me with the prosecution testimony that shows “following” is illegal in the State of Florida.

To say you’re not keeping up would be a vast understatement. Nowhere have I opined that following someone is illegal. I’m merely countering your bizarre observation that TM’s death is his fault because he was taking a walk. It’s my opinion that if we’re going to assign moral responsibility for what happened that evening, GZ has a heavy load to carry.

Unfortunately for you, the dictionary is not admissible evidence in a court of law. Only state statute is. Your argument, as usual, is weak. I can just see you in a trial setting, Tom, addressing a jury; “You see, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant was stalking and here is what the Merriam dictionary says about that.” You would be laughed out of the court room.

LOL! What the hell are you talking about?! I didn’t realize that I was a sworn witness in the George Zimmerman trial. Here I was thinking I was just posting my thoughts and opinions on a message board, but apparently everything I write is governed by FL state statute! You’re not going to come arrest me for perjury, are you?

@retire05:

Unarmed? Certainly not. Trayvon Martin was armed with the weapons that he was quite familiar with; his fists. And he used them. And if you think fists are not considered a weapon, I suggest you research FBI murder stats where “fists” are listed as a cause of murder, hence making them a weapon.

Do fists kill people?

@Greg:

and having a dangerous packet of Skittles in his pocket, surely. ..

It’s possible he was carrying one of those tricked-out packs that delivers an automatic burst of fruit flavor. They are illegal, but easy to procure at candy shows.

@Tom:

Do fists kill people?

According to the FBI they do since they are listed as murder weapons along with rifles, hand guns, etc..

Tom
yes you are arrested, don’t pass go and stop directly to prison,

@Tom:

Nowhere have I opined that following someone is illegal. I’m merely countering your bizarre observation that TM’s death is his fault because he was taking a walk. It’s my opinion that if we’re going to assign moral responsibility for what happened that evening, GZ has a heavy load to carry.

If we are going to assign moral responsibility, should that responsibility not be assigned to the person that started the physical confrontation to begin with, consistent with the law? Or do we just ignore Florida law?

You’re not going to come arrest me for perjury, are you?

No, but arguing that GZ is guilty of “stalking” due to a dictionary explanation, is pure stupidity. Fortunately, you are safe from being arrested. One cannot be arrested simply because they are stupid.

@retire05, #58:

It still exists. That is why the burden of proof of a crime being committed is up to the prosecution. Now, perhaps you can show me where Bernie de La Rionda, and the rest of the prosecution team, proved,

Not under Florida law. There’s a dead kid on the sidewalk, and a man who has admittedly shot him with a gun. When you’re making an affirmative defense case in a Florida courtroom—which is what Zimmerman’s attorneys are doing—the burden of proving self defense falls on the defense.

This isn’t a case where the question is whether the defendant is innocent or guilt of shooting someone. It’s already known for a fact that he shot someone—which, as a general rule, the law disapproves of. The question is whether or not that act can be justified. There’s no legal presumption that you’re justified in shooting and killing another person unless it can be proven otherwise.

Just consider how bizarre the legal system would be if there were. Prisons would be letting out empty rooms for rent, and the bodies would be piling up like cordwood.

@Greg:

Geeze, Greggie, how lame brained can you be?

Not

under Florida law. There’s a dead kid on the sidewalk, and a man who has admittedly shot him with a gun. When you’re making an affirmative defense case in a Florida courtroom—which is what Zimmerman’s attorneys are doing—the burden of proving self defense falls on the defense.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who brought the charges to begin with. You have it exactly backwards. The prosecution, not the defense, brings the charges, then has to prove their claims in a court of law. It is up to the defense to show where the prosecution is wrong. If it were not for claims by the prosecution, there would be no need for defense, now would there be?

There’s no legal presumption that you’re justified in shooting and killing another person unless it can be proven otherwise.

But there is legal presumption that you have the right to defend yourself against harm or perceived harm.

And it is up to the PROSECUTION to prove that you were NOT justified in killing another person.

Now,

Answer these questions:

do you believe that Trayvon Martin had plenty of time to get to Brandi Green’s townhome where he could have called 911 and reported that he was being followed by someone?

do you think George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin BEFORE he was punched in the face by Trayvon?

do you believe that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, throwing blows MMA style?

do you believe that a man almost 30, considered clinically obese, is any match for a well-muscled 17 year old man?

do you believe that having your head bashed into a concrete sidewalk would cause you to believe that you were in physical harm’s way?

@retire05, #66:

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who brought the charges to begin with. You have it exactly backwards. The prosecution, not the defense, brings the charges, then has to prove their claims in a court of law. It is up to the defense to show where the prosecution is wrong. If it were not for claims by the prosecution, there would be no need for defense, now would there be?

I’m afraid that’s just not how affirmative defense actually works under Florida law. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s an explanation copied directly from a Florida criminal law defense firm’s website:

Florida Affirmative Defenses – Justification and Excuse

Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act forming the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations), but justifies or excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment. In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the act. However, I am not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.”

For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial, the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations.

Zimmerman committed the act. That isn’t disputed. If he wishes to avoid criminal liability, he must justify the act. He’s claiming self defense. It’s therefore up to the defense to present sufficient evidence to prove self defense to the jury. The defense has the burden of proof.

@Greg:

If the burden of proof is on the defense, then why is the prosecution allowed to present their case FIRST before the jury? The prosecution brings its case first because it is saying “The defendant did this and this is the reason they are guilty of violating the law.” Why not just let the defense go first claiming affirmative defense, proving why they should not be found guilty (mitigating circumstances) and let the prosecution say, “no, no, no, that’s not correct and here’s why?”

You don’t even understand what you are reading.

Now, answer my questions (while I suspect you will dodge them like you consistently do)

If the burden of proof is on the defense, then why is the prosecution allowed to present their case FIRST before the jury?

The prosecution presents their case first simply because they’re laying out the assertions and evidence which the defense will need to respond to. How would the defense know what assertions and evidence they have to discredit in the eyes of the jury, otherwise?

You don’t even understand what you are reading.

I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding of what the defense attorneys at the page I linked are saying. They make it all quite clear. Anyone who doesn’t grasp who has the legal burden of proof will likely misunderstand what’s been happening in the courtroom.

Now, answer my questions (while I suspect you will dodge them like you consistently do)

We were discussing who has the burden of proof to establish self defense. That would be the lawyers representing George Zimmerman. In the context of that discussion, I’m afraid your questions are the diversion. For most of them, all I could have are opinions. If the jury behaves properly, they will attend to established facts and leave opinions out of it.

@Greg:

I’m afraid your questions are the diversion.

How so? I asked them a number of entries ago.

For most of them, all I could have are opinions.

That is what a decision of the jury is, Greggie; their “opinion” on the facts of the case.

I understand you are trying to dodge but……………..

Answer these questions:

do you believe that Trayvon Martin had plenty of time to get to Brandi Green’s townhome where he could have called 911 and reported that he was being followed by someone?

do you think George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin BEFORE he was punched in the face by Trayvon?

do you believe that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, throwing blows MMA style?

do you believe that a man almost 30, considered clinically obese, is any match for a well-muscled 17 year old man?

do you believe that having your head bashed into a concrete sidewalk would cause you to believe that you were in physical harm’s way?

Damn Greg, how DUMB are you?? it’s ALWAYS been the STATES job, to carry the BURDEN of PROOF, and DEFENSE ALWAYS goes LAST,to REBUT any Prosecutors claims. You talk LOTS, but seem to know VERY LITTLE… this is BASIC LAW PRIMER stuff. SHEESH!!

@retire05. #70:

Kindly read the last 2 sentences in item #69 again.

Let’s talk for a moment about the CRIME..GZ and TM MIND-SET the alternatives and the out come..THE CRIME…GZ being SUCKER-PUNCHED…recieving PUNCH’S in BUNCH’S, a FEW head slam’s to the CONCRETE (which in some cases can cause death or permanent BRAIN-DAMAGE) all of this in a mila-second after recieving the SUCKER-PUNCH…”DOWN GOES ZIMMERMAN” and just maybe…before GZ hits the ground…TM is on top of him (we have a witness) with nothing but EVIL ENTENTE…I believe at this point “IF” GZ went unconscious…he might have recieved a killing blow OR recieved a punch or two and a few kicks to the face and body by TM before TM decided that he could go home and tell his friends how I just kicked the CRAP out of some “CRACKER”….

Here was TM’s (2) choices before the CRIME…continue going home with a SKIDDLES & ICE TEA or (MIND SET) confront this guy (I’m BIGGER)…SUCKER PUNCH him and then I’ll kick the crap out of this little fat guy..

Bad choice TM…

I heard last night that GZ had his gun drawn…REALLY ??…GZ get’s out of the vehicle..draws his weapon and in short order is confronting or being confronted by TM…SUCKER PUNCHED…no GUN SHOT…on the ground and recieving punch’s in bunch’s, head being slammed to the concrete…screams for HELP and then a gun shot…
prosecution wants to know why the screaming stopped….”The beating stopped” A-Holes !!!! Once again TM had two choices…continue going home or STAND AND FIGHT….they want to take about MIND-SET….thier lawyers not SHRINK’S….GZ acted in fear for his life..SOMEONE PAINT ANOTHER PICTURE IF I’M WRONG !!!!

@Greg:

. #70:

Kindly read the last 2 sentences in item #69 again.

In other words, once again, you refuse to answer questions that you would obviously have trouble spinning.

Got it.

@Hankster58, #71:

Damn Greg, how DUMB are you??

I’m not the one having difficulty understanding what the Florida criminal defense attorneys’ website says about affirmative defenses. Really, they aren’t just making this stuff up. Allow me to summarize:

Under Florida law, if you affirm that you committed the act, but want to escape punishment for it, you must establish that you committed the act for a good reason.

Self defense is a good reason—provided you can convince the court that it was self defense. If that’s what you’re claiming, that’s what you hire a criminal defense lawyer to prove.

What do people think has been going on in the courtroom all this past week?

@retire05:

According to the FBI they do since they are listed as murder weapons along with rifles, hand guns, etc..

Oh, I thought only “people kill people”.

No, but arguing that GZ is guilty of “stalking” due to a dictionary explanation, is pure stupidity.

That’s funny. I don’t remember writing that GZ was legally guilty of stalking. Do you enjoy arguing against invented strawmen? By the way, if your deer hunting friend tells you he ‘stalked’ a buck this morning, do you get out the Florida penal code and start grilling him, then call him a liar? Apparently the word “stalk” doesn’t exist outside Florida.

@Greg:

an affirmative defense is any matter that avoids the action and that, under applicable law, the plaintiff is not bound to prove initially but the defendant must affirmatively establish. Langford v. McCormick, 552 So.2d 964, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

http://floridalegalwiki.com/index.php?title=Affirmative_Defense

The plaintiff (prosecution) is not bound to prove initially.

Let that sink in, Greggie.

jerseyflash
hi, where where you all this time,
yes you got it round up close pretty true to the case, I ‘m sure of it.
by the way did you ever found out what happen to OLD TROOPER?
SINCE THE LAST TIME WE TALK ABOUT IT.

The more I learn about this jury the more I worry they will send Zimmerman to prison for at least a while.
Corey’s girl, the judge, will make sure it is long enough to satisfy the bloodlust of the blacks.
Of course Zimmerman might be murdered behind bars.
But Obama will come out looking like a rose, and isn’t that all that matters?
This has been a political show trial as much as sending the creator of the video blamed for Benghazi behind bars.

@Tom:

I don’t remember writing that GZ was legally guilty of stalking

No? How about this declarative statement you made?

Hint: when a grown, armed man stalks and ultimately shoots a teenager to death,

You didn’t say Zimmerman was accused of stalking, or the claim had been made he was stalking, you said WHEN a grown man stalks. Now are you going to say that was not an accusation of guilt on your part? Really? And you expect others to buy that b/s?

Nan G
I feel your sadness also,
and I’M so scare that you might be correct like always,
hope this one become a mistake from you.
bye

@Tom:

Oh, I thought only “people kill people”.

People kill people, using weapons such as guns, hatchets, knives, baseball bats, vehicles, and fists.

@retire05:

so guns kill people?

@retire05:

Again I fail to see where I wrote anything about his being legally guilty of anything. He could be found not-guilty by this jury and it won’t change one iota the fact your hero is a dumb ass whose careless and irresponsible actions caused the death of TM. Being found guilty of a homicide or manslaughter and and being responsible for someone’s death are two completely different things, by the way, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

@Tom:

so guns kill people?

What do you not understand about

People kill people, using weapons

@Tom:

Again I fail to see where I wrote anything about his being legally guilty of anything.

Re-read your own declarative statement.

He could be found not-guilty by this jury

So you are privy to what the determination of this jury will be? There is still the option of “not guilty” due to self-defense.

and it won’t change one iota the fact your hero is a dumb ass whose careless and irresponsible actions caused the death of TM.

Where did I ever say GZ was my hero? Frankly, I find him a tragic figure, a man who proves no good deed (trying to protect his neighborhood) goes unpunished.

Being found guilty of a homicide or manslaughter and and being responsible for someone’s death are two completely different things, by the way, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

You say that based on your assumption that a person has no right to kill another, even if in self-defense. And the question is not is GM responsible for TM’s death; the question is is he guilty of Murder 2 or manslaughter according to the laws of Florida? Being responsible for someone’s death and being guilty of murder/manslaughter is two different things.

@retire05, #77:

Mr. Zimmerman would be the defendant. He must affirmatively establish his assertion of self defense—which means, he must prove it.

The plaintiff (prosecution) is not bound to prove initially. Which means that to go to trial, the state needs only to assert its charges. What the state considers to be proof is presented at the trial.

Your link, however, isn’t really something too much time should be spent on, because the page pertains to Florida civil cases as opposed to Florida criminal cases. Note that all of the affirmative defenses listed pertain to civil actions. Self defense isn’t even listed.

@Greg:

And you obtained your law degree where?

I doubt you have a penny to float.

And you’ll answer my questions when? Or are you afraid to answer them?

I don’t need a law degree to understand what’s plainly stated.

Regarding the other questions, I’ve already expressed my opinions about what I think happened. Other people have differing opinions. Endless argument about them is pointless. I’ll accept the verdict that the jury decides on.

I dislike the Florida laws that come into play. They don’t give a court sufficient leeway, in my opinion. Conservatives have pushed through a stand-your-ground law that falsely gives people the impression that they can shoot when it seems reasonable to them, and not have too much trouble justifying what they’ve done.

They’ve also left sentencing rules on the books that send people convicted of manslaughter to prison for periods that you’d normally expect for murder convictions, if a gun happens to be involved in the act.

As I commented elsewhere, the Florida legislature has essentially set George Zimmerman up for unfair sentencing, if he happens to be convicted of manslaughter. The court should have more leeway to make the punishment fit the crime, taking all circumstances and uncertainties into account.

NOT GUILTY.

It’s pretty obvious to thinking people that Zimmerman is a liar and guilty. That being said, this is Florida and anything goes in that racist state.

If he’s freed, there will surely be riots and more shootings of innocent kids will happen under this lame stand your ground law.

The decision of the jury is good enough for me. I’m glad that what was mentioned in #89 won’t be turning into an issue.

NOT GUILTY!!! Liberals may go now and pout and cry…..

@retire05: 80… that’s called WEASELING and CRAWFISHING!! LOL!!

@Greg: Good on you Greg

@This one:

If he’s freed, there will surely be riots and more shootings of innocent kids will happen under this lame stand your ground law.

Yeah, because burning down your own neighborhood is what intelligent, civilized people do.

And Stand Your Ground is not causing the deaths of all those black children in Chicago.

And the losing team rushes to the TV cameras.

The Marsha Clark/Chris Darden School For Prosecutors is alive and well.

@retire05, #97:

And the losing team rushes to the TV cameras.

They were certainly more gracious in defeat than Don West is in victory. Not to mention more responsible, considering how high feelings might be running in some areas.

@Greg:

They were certainly more gracious in defeat than Don West is in victory.

A man’s life has been destroyed all to serve the Great Poverty Pimp god. How would you act if you were his attorney knowing that the prosecution withheld discovery until a month ago and actually deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone?

@Greg:

Not to mention more responsible, considering how high feelings might be running in some areas.

When you have to pander to the masses to prevent the masses from rioting/burning down their own neighborhoods, what does that say about the masses?