Is It Game Over in Trayvon Martin Case?

Trayon in June , 2010. Posted this on Twitter. A teen coming of age.
Trayon in June , 2010. Posted this on Twitter. A teen coming of age.

The polarization between races in this simple manslaughter case is staggering. Both sides seem to be unwilling or unable to give the other side the benefit of the doubt as what really happened.

Finally, today, new evidence has been released that supports and documents what George Zimmerman has said is true. The doctor that treated Zimmerman the day after the incident, Feb.27, to see if he was able to return to work (which never happened). According to the doctor's report, George did, indeed, have two black eyes, a broken nose or fracture, a large cut on the back of his head that did not require stitches. The doctor also noted that his mental status was in jeopardy. Zimmerman was greatly affected with insomnia and disturbed as to what happened. He was traumatized by the whole event and gave him a prescription to help him sleep and cope. All this is evidence, documented evidence the prosecution will have to overcome to make any murder charge or manslaughter charge stick. A previously unreleased police report indicates that Z's back was wet and had grass and grass stains. According to CBS news, the report also shows that Trayvon was straddled on Z as he was tossing punches at Z, hence, the the reason why the mortician indicated his knuckles were bruised and cut.

On the side of Trayvon Martin, the caretaker has further elaborated as to the boy's condition while he was prepped. The mortician noted that Trayvon did have bruises and cuts on his knuckles. This was not previously disclosed. Originally, the mortician said Trayvon had no cuts or bruises.

This places even more burden of proof on the prosecution to warrant the charges that it was not self defense. With Trayvon have cuts and bruised knuckles and Zimmerman having black eyes, cuts on the back of his head, the smoking evidence is pointing that Zimmerman was getting beaten up fairly bad by Trayvon. As the struggle continued, the gun was finally exposed and both parties obviously fought for its control in seconds. Then it went off by accident. It could have easily been Zimmerman who lost his life had the barrel been pointed at him and not Trayvon.

I am sorry. This has nothing to do with race. This new evidence is critical and it could have easily told a story that would prove Zimmerman a liar. It did not. It is medical evidence written by a doctor who examined him the day after. There will be many racists who simply will not accept what seems to be increasingly clear, that what Z has said is true.

The whole case will hinge on the 90 seconds that only Z was witness to. If Z confronted first, regardless of what happened afterwards in the scuffle, he is guilty. He cannot use the stand your own ground law. If Trayvon was first, Z is innocent because the stand your own ground law would then apply-especially if Z was getting pounded by Trayvon.

More by this Author


Comments 32 comments

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Very interesting information, but I doubt we will see this covered on the news to any large degree. The media had their fun with it, stirred up a huge amount of hate, and put it to bed. Thanks for this factual report.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

I was in a fight back in junior high. During this struggle, I was kicked in the face, the length of the other person's shoe went across the width (not length) of my face and hit squarely right on the bridge of my nose between my eyes.

Blood poured from my nose like a faucet, leaving stains all over my clothes, and within 20 minutes the swelling made me look like a Star Wars alien species...it has been to long since I've seen any episodes to single type out...but I looked horrible. The black eyes showed up a few hours later.. I saw pictures of lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head, but I have yet to see any pictures of his face to match with this testimony, and there were no discernible bloodstains on his clothes. The jury will find out for sure.

But with that said, there is a larger issue that is being lost here...

2) The Stand Your Ground Law

I have been researching self defense cases from around the nation, but including Florida. Many people are quick to give Zimmerman a nod for defending himself. They disparage Martin's image to say he was a "bad guy"...

But none of that matters... The issue is who was defending themselves RIGHTFULLY...meaning within the confines of the law.

-Zimmerman will still be found to be beyond the bounds of "Neighborhood Watch" because of his carrying a weapon and because of his violation of their policies.. Any use of this unofficial title as justification is completely irrelevant and wrong.

-Self-defense all comes down to the individual and his/her belief in imminent harm. There is no way to deny that Martin was just as allowed to defend himself from what he perceived to be an unlawful threat as Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman was a law enforcement officer, the situation would of course be different...

Trayvon had every justification to 1) feel threatened, to 2) prepare a response (he fled at first, but was caught up with), and 3) carry out your plan of action.

Why do so many people deny Martin this? Especially under the "Stand Your Ground" law... Martin could have killed Zimmerman...and when Zimmerman pulled a weapon, he had every right to.

The best outcome of this tragedy is to say they both were defending themselves, but then it falls down to the bare bones of this case....Zimmerman was told to stand down... He was the initial aggressor, and he created a situation...

It will fall on him.. He showed an inability to follow basic instructions...and this time it ended in a life being lost without any need, reason, or rational explanation..

Zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant, and only/mainly being used to attempt to create an impartial trial.


cruelkindness profile image

cruelkindness 4 years ago from an angle view.

Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room!

Great hub!

Cruelkindness (Subliminally Thoughtless)


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN

I guess I'm in the middle on the issue. I think the self defense laws need to be re-evaluated, though they may be irrelevant in this case. The problems with the current laws could justify a lengthily book to say the least.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

first, just because a 911 operator tells you to do something, and you don't, is not a crime or violation. Neighbrhood watch issue is smoke. There is no law that indicates you cannot or can have a gun, especially when Z had a license to carry one. Moot point. The whole deal will come down to who started the confrontation in relation to stand your ground. Just because Z observed him and followed him does not mean he hated blacks. He was simply suspicious, for whatever reason. No different than if you notice someone casing your joint.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

Perrya, your points are moot....

You are avoiding the key issue....initiation of aggression.

You continue to deny that Martin had reason/cause to defend himself.

You minimize the key ingredient to all of this.... Trayvon did not chase down Zimmerman....he did not follow Zimmerman.... There was only one person picking a confrontation... Zimmerman cannot claim that he was acting under the auspices of Neighborhood Watch, because he violated their policies....he has no defense on these grounds...this is moot....

The only way, and this is based off case law, not my opinion, that Zimmerman can plead self defense is if he, being the aggressor, then breaks off contact, communicating in any way to Martin that he is no longer posing a threat, and then Martin attacks... If he engages with someone (and ZImmerman need not even put his hands on Martin...he just needs to enable Martin to believe that he is being trapped....this is all basic self-defense legal judgement here...not my opinion), and that person fights back to the degree that the aggressor (Zimmerman) fears for his life, Zimmerman is by no means authorized to use deadly force... If you were walking down the street and some stranger (say he claimed to be neighborhood watch) came up to you and tried to detain you, you would be within your rights to defend yourself...the degree of your defense is based on the degree of YOUR PERCEPTION of the threat... If the Zimmerman in this case put his hands on you, you can take him to town (or the hospital) with no threat of legal recourse against you.

Look up cases for yourself.... You will find this pattern prevails... This is beyond racism, this is beyond the circus...this is simply determining who had justifiable self-defense...

Why anyone would remove Martin's right to life/right to defend himself from a stranger...someone who was not law enforcement, I will never understand.

If it was your son or daughter walking down the street (and I'm sure if you have kids his age I can find them flipping people off and doing other things) and someone did the same thing Zimmerman did to them you would definitely sing a different tune...

Why is Martin denied the same treatment that Zimmerman supporters show?

Unfortunately, this is where race comes into play...

If you want me to start laying out specific cases with the rulings I can.... Do I have to go that far?


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

If I notice someone "casing my joint" (what does that look like exactly?), I can call the police with my concerns.

If I go out and start a confrontation with that person, I am responsible. If I try to hold up that person, I have now broken the law, and if that person beats my ass I have no legal recourse...

All the time I have strangers parking in front of my house. We have a community college near by, but far enough away that students don't park by me. Typically, it is a young couple making out, or perhaps some people puffing on cannabis.

If I perceive someone to be acting suspiciously (and any police officer will tell you this, I know enough of them and have asked), I can call it in. Beyond that, it is for the police to investigate.

If there is a life in jeopardy, that is another issue.... If the car outside ignited, or if someone in the car was hurting someone else, it is up to me to step in..

However, depending on my actions and the outcome, I am risking not only injury, but the potential of unintentionally committing a crime of my own...

If one is willing to roll those dice, they need to man up when they blow it...

Zimmerman blew it...regardless of his intentions...

If Zimmerman posed a threat to Martin, Martin was entitled to a defense...it is that simple...

Again, why it is not so simple for so many others, I know not. This is basic jurisprudence...


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

The only private citizens that I am aware of who can legally detain anyone are merchants or merchants' agents...

If security guards, say in a private community (these are uniformed officers...not plain-clothes citizenry), come across a person they KNOW (not even suspect) has committed crimes in their communities they cannot legally put their hands on them or try to confine them...they have to call the police. A private citizen can try to initiate and keep a conversation going to keep the person around, but that person is free to leave.

If the initiator then decides to take a different tactic, they are responsible for what happens..they have crossed the legal boundary..... Only law enforcement officers can do this..

He overstepped his bounds.... It is a tragedy on all counts...

But I continually find myself asking why people stoop to the irrelevant issue of Trayvon's character (while being hypocrites in the act at the same time). Perrya, if I had a camera around you 24/7, I wonder what treasure troves I could find....I wonder what would have been discovered when you were his age.

It's all irrelevant to the issue..... It is one thing to argue the legal issue....it is another to do what you do in this hub... I ask, why? What is the motivation here? If you are going to argue, at least educate yourself on the subject....and the emotional signatures being transmitted (the "body language" of your creation) is very troubling.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

"Not all arrests are made by members of law enforcement. Many jurisdictions permit private citizens to make arrests. Popularly known as citizen's arrests, the circumstances under which private citizens may place each other under arrest are normally very limited. All jurisdictions that authorize citizen's arrests prohibit citizens from making arrests for unlawful acts committed outside their presence. Most jurisdictions that authorize citizen's arrests also allow citizens to make arrests only for serious crimes, such as felonies and gross misdemeanors, and then only when the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe the arrestee committed the serious crime. Witnessing the crime in person will normally establish probable cause for making an arrest.

Both private citizens and law enforcement officers may be held liable for the tort of false arrest in civil court. An action for false arrest requires proof that the process used for the arrest was void on its face. In other words, one who confines another, while purporting to act by authority of law which does not in fact exist, makes a false arrest and may be required to pay money damages to the victim. To make out a claim for false arrest, the plaintiff must show that the charges on which he or she was arrested ultimately lacked justification. That is, the plaintiff in a false arrest action must show that the arrest was made without probable cause and for an improper purpose."

Note....for justifiable "citizens arrest" a crime needs to have been committed...with an eyewitness... No precognition... No suspicion..

Zimmerman will lose... I foresee manslaughter.. Which is absolutely reasonable. He didn't need to intend to kill anyone, nor harm anyone..

He just needed to exceed his legal authority..


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-ap...

In this case the defendant was a bail-bondsman... But its getting close.. Not looking good for Zimmerman..


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

"Section 776.05, Florida Statutes, Law Enforcement Officers; Use of Force in Making an Arrest - A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:"---it continues, but it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Zimmerman will argue, no doubt, that he wasn't trying to "arrest" Martin...but then what term would he be using?


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

This is where Zimmerman will have problems... As the aggressor, he is left with living up to 2.b.

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor...a connection I have no doubt they will make.

The prosecution will then prove Trayvon's equal protection in terms of Stand Your Ground...and Zimmerman will be left in a world of hurt..


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

If it is Martin's voice on the audio yelling "help".....poor Zimmerman...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963...


bogusmoss 4 years ago from Oklahoma

To say race isn’t an issue here is a little on the ridiculous side. We all know that if roles were reversed Martin would have been arrested that night and would still be in jail right now. You can bet that race will be in effect time of the trial and most likely in Zimmerman’s favor.

I agree with mikelong completely. Great job on your sources mike. Race doesn’t even have to be a factor in convicting this guy. Zimmerman overstepped the bounds of a so-called neighborhood watchman to the highest degree. Just because you have a concealed weapons permit does not mean that all of a sudden you have the authority to enforce the law. Correct me if I’m wrong but even if you try to make a citizen’s arrest you cannot pull a weapon because that action puts you in violation of the law. A concealed weapons permit is for your protection only and it is up to you to make sure that your weapon stays concealed. You cannot go around brandishing your weapon. Your responsibility also includes protecting the public at large from your own weapon being compromised and then used in a subsequent crime.

This goes to the point mike makes above in (2)(a). Just to give a little background: I served in the Marine Corps, the El Paso Sherriff’s Dept. as a detention officer, and the U.S. Customs. In each and every case deadly force was to be used as a last resort. All means of equal or lesser force must be exhausted before deadly force can be used. Even then, you must be in danger or fear of serious bodily injury or death. So, if anything, the case can be made that Martin escalated as far as he could to protect himself. He couldn’t match the gun because he didn’t have one. He did what he could with his hands. Why doesn’t Martin get the benefit of the stand your ground law?

Also, why didn’t Zimmerman identify himself? The situation might not have escalated had he done so. As far as his suspicions are concerned, so what. That’s why you call the police and let the professionals handle it. As a Customs Inspector I carried a firearm and had great authority on the border. But, once I left the border my authority pretty much ceased. We were authorized to assist other law enforcement officers if it was necessary but were encouraged to be better witnesses than heroes. Why in the hell would Zimmerman have more authority than a law enforcement officer? It doesn’t make sense and it shouldn’t be that way.

Zimmerman needs to go to jail for a long time. This Tackleberry wannabe is a disgrace.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

well. long winded Mike, like many heated discussions about this case and that will no doubt be in court, I will agree to disagree. Citing law and cases is fine, but they are not on all "four", some elements are missing because the precise facts have not come out and we are all presuming this or that happened. if Z has a licence to carry a pistol in public, concealed or not, it really does not matter what you think should be the way. I just think so far the evidence has tilted in Z's favor as to what happened. If Tray attacked Z first, and it is proven, game over. Z acted in self defense while a struggle hit the ground. if Z struck first, he goes to jail even if Tray was winning the fight on the ground, which seems to be the case because Z had started it regardless how things changed.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

A license to carry a weapon has no bearing on this case.

All Trayvon needed to justify himself, not Zimmerman, but Martin, was to feel threatened....to think he needed to defend himself.

If he preempts, and hits Zimmerman first, it is still Zimmerman's problem...

Trayvon had no idea who he was...and was under no obligation to follow Zimmerman's directions (if he gave any), answer any of his questions, or to stand by and let Zimmerman detain him.

Again, for all Trayvon knew, Zimmerman could have been a child molester/kidnapper coming after him.. Even in your worst case scenario, where Martin is a "troubled youth"....how would he know that Zimmerman wasn't another "troubled young man" out for trouble?

Zimmerman will have a very hard time.....and the prosecutors will be much better than me... (I hope).

Who struck who first is irrelevant...it comes down to who felt justifiably threatened FIRST....


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Sorry, many attorneys differ with the analysis. But, that is why a court of law will decide.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

This is almost a no-win subject as only one of the participants is here to tell his side of the story. The world is fairly divided between those who feel Zimmerman should be taken out and hung, and those who feel he should walk away clean. The whole thing is sad and should never have happened.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

Sources?


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I agree, those who think it is racially motivated are the racists


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

"An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near

so that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first,

and is not required to wait until he has been struck."

– 16th Century English Self Defense Law -

The tradition the English colonists turned Americans used to create their standards.

http://www.videojug.com/interview/being-attacked-i...

Is a preemptive attack (in the case Martin struck first) still considered justifiable self-defense?

I am looking for any source, Perrya, that would make Martin the "bad guy" on this...but there is nothing to support that assertion.

With this said, I still don't understand what demonizing Martin has to do with anything...the only connection I have made is actual or colorblind racism. Again, I point to your (Perrya) use of the Martin image with the middle finger up....

While I might not agree with this idea, I do see the potential for each young man to be technically justified in terms of "self-defense"....

Zimmerman will attest that he was lawfully acting against someone he perceived to be trespassing (that is the only thing he can claim....the suspicion in other crimes is completely irrelevant.). Though told to stand down by a person representing law enforcement and violating neighborhood watch standards, he will hold that he was legally justified to pursue Martin. (Tough sell, and the prosecution's burden of proof is to show reasonable doubt...I think they will)..

In Martin's case, he has a stranger focusing on and pursuing him. Zimmerman not being in uniform or an identified (or actual) law enforcement officer, Martin would have no inclination that Zimmerman's intents would be lawful. He has every right to defend himself, including preemptively, if he thinks he is in danger.

Again, and this is what I don't understand about this, I reiterate that deriding Martin's character and making him an "enemy" is irrelevant.......he could have been the meanest gang-banger in the world, and he would still be justified to defend himself.

This is not rocket science...


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

Have you ever flipped anyone off Perrya? Do you have kids who have reached adolescence? I used to wear a tri-hawk and spikes around my wrists and neck.. So what? I used to associate with gang members, and have had my share of fights... And? The racism is found in the hypocrisy that is found in the picture you selected, the line of attack you chose, and your denial that race has anything to do with it. You don't have to be able to see your own actions to be guilty of racism...


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

The photo of Trayvon is one he posted and wanted the world to see. Obviously, he is a teen, wants to be a gangsta like many his age. The only photos I have seen are ones that show him as sweet, 12 yr old, which of course, intended to sway opinion against Z. Mike, it is obvious you have convicted Z and seek revenge before the trial takes place. I do not. I simply said, Z's doctor report supports Z's claim. Something that cannot be refuted. Your rant is simply silly because it is irrelevant, just as my opinion is. public opinion on this case is very biased against Z, because of the innocent photos initially posted. Nothing was further from how he really looked. He was 17, not 12. He 6'3", not 5'6". The media was dishing out a lot of disinformation. Now, it is more balanced because what Z has said is being supported by evidence, not emotional BS from racists.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

Do you have facebook.... I have seen adults post far worse than that.

I was in the Marines, and I've witnessed "our best" do far worse and show far worse.

I seek revenge?

No. I am countering people like you who have predetermined Martin as "killable".

Rant?

No. You are not hearing my vocal tone. I am reasoning.

Rants lack logic and coherence, whereas I don't. Your response here, however.....very rant-esq, though I don't hear your voice, so there's no way to know.....is there?

I need not look at physical age or stature to draw a conclusion.. I look at the facts that we know, the laws on the books, and the decisions that have followed from those laws.

The trial will show everything, and I will be watching attentively.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

ditto. calm down.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

You keep projecting that I am not calm?

I worry about people who make assumptions, as you are here.

You have no idea how calm I am feeling.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Good to hear, everyone makes assumptions, even you. CBS news just released more evidence that what Z has said is true according unreleased police reports. Just saying...


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7408772n&ut...

Yes, and you are making assumptions on what they are.. Do you read before you write? (No rant voice....reasoned, calm, questioning)

The police report still fails to note any blood on Zimmerman's clothing...just wetness on the back... Less than a broken nose will still cause blood to flow like a faucet from his face...it would be everywhere if the chaos of the altercation was what it was...

Where's all the blood?

Injuries to Martin are equally conclusive that he was trying to defend himself.

According to Florida State Law, Martin is entitled to self-defense....now we are back to my main point. Why you still deny Martin's right to defense is beyond me.


dmop profile image

dmop 4 years ago from Cambridge City, IN

I'm not really trying to take sides here, I don't know what really happened, but being hit in the face, eyes, or nose doesn't necessarily cause any blood to fall. I have had double black eyes and a broken nose and never seen a single drop of blood. It all depends on the person being hit.


mikelong profile image

mikelong 4 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

Zimmerman himself put forward that he had a bloody nose...

Those are his words, not mine.

Where's the blood?


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Huh, maybe it was cleaned. geez, takes medics seconds to do it. CBS news just tonight provided a previously unreleased police report that supports Z, again. Trayvon was straddled over him, Z was getting beat. Police found grass and the back of Z's jacket wet. Trayvon's knuckles were bleeding a little.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working