Citizen 4.0
356 Followers · 4.7K Items
Rose Iphone 5 Case
Saved 5/15/12 to Citizen 4.0

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles


Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles

 
SANFORD, Fla. —
WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.The information could support George Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.The autopsy results come as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.
O’Mara wouldn't comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it's better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman's bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.“It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.The injury to Martin’s knuckle also fits with Zimmerman's story that before he shot and killed Martin, Martin had broken his nose and knocked him to the ground, slamming his head on the sidewalk. But Sheaffer said there could be another explanation for Martin's knuckle injury.“It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself,” Sheaffer said.Zimmerman shot and killed the unarmed teenager almost three months ago after calling 911 to report the teenager was acting suspiciously. Zimmerman said Martin threw the first punch and that he opened fire in self-defense after his screams for help went unanswered. The FBI was not able to determine whether it was Zimmerman or Trayvon who could be heard crying out for help in 911 calls.The defense is trying to decide what evidence it wants a judge to keep confidential before the media gets a chance to see it, but WFTV is being told that could happen in the next week or so.    In the meantime, there’s new information surfacing about Zimmerman.ABC News said it has obtained Zimmerman's medical report from the day after the killing. According to ABC, the report shows Zimmerman had a broken nose and abrasions on the back of his head.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-...

Saved to

Citizen 4.0

Rose Iphone 5 Case ACORN Smear Costs O'Keefe What Could Possibly Go Wrong? I Do Thank the Right for Its Tepid Support of This Guy I Feel Safer Now There Will Be More Trayvons Hill GOP Struggling to Face Reality It Created
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
Who's Horowitz??? "Would appearing on Fox make his legal expertise any less valid?" No. But his choice of a venue that has targeted the victim in this case since day one does raise questions of the integrity and possible bias of his comments. It doesn't make sense to parrot his comments if they aren't actually part of the law in Florida. And the Florida doubt jury instruction says "such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt." They're not going to be told to break toward the defendant even if they have an abiding conviction that Zimmerman was indifferent to Martin's life. And it is possible to make an argument that Zimmerman was indifferent to Martin's life. Then the question becomes was he genuinely in fear for his life.
Grandpa Grandpa 2 years 17 weeks
Horowitz wrote some articles, I don't know if he ever commented on Fox about Zimmerman, and yes, Staph, i have read the actual text, i am not sure if i copied and posted with one of my comments or not. If horowtiz did appear on fox, would that make he legal expertise any less valid? It certainly more valid in the eyes of the world more valid then the either you or I when it comes to interpreting the law.
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
I didn't simply expound Gramps, and I didn't rely on a Fox News pundit. I looked up Florida law. Second degree murder makes more sense when you know that they'll be considering whether the totality of Zimmerman's actions showed a depraved indifference to Martin's life and that his claim that he acted in self-defense depends on more than who threw the first punch. I still have my original doubt that there'll be a conviction because the investigation was so half-assed.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 17 weeks
"But was that reaction a physical confrontation? Essentially, did Martin throw the first punch? It appears very likely, given the witness statement, and what we know about Zimmerman (that he is a wimp). Was Martin's reaction justified? No." Unfortunately Martin is not here so I can only testify to human nature but you can't blame Martin for lighting the match if Zimmerman dumped a load of kindling on his feet. As I've suggested I'm also inclined to believe that Martin reacted preemptively but his reaction was not a wrong reaction to what he perceived as a personal threat. It doesn't matter if you UnDave wouldn't have felt threatened. Some one who is threatened in that situation has equally valid thoughts for feeling threatened in the moment. Any one of us can sit behind our key board and think of a reasoned out response for Martin. Without the stranger following us in a car. Without a stranger exiting his car and approaching us on foot and without the adrenaline fueling any fear or threat. There is no doubt in my mind Zimmerman approached Martin. Some of you want to suggest he didn't on account he may not have been face to face with Martin but an approach is an approach whether your 2ft. or 8ft. apart. If some one is in a state of fear for their safety that's it they're in it until it passes. Self defense is as much a state of mind as it is a law and the latter follows the lead of the first to determine justice. As if all this isn't enough add the possibility that Martin figured out Zimmerman was carrying a fire arm and you've now got an adolescent male in fight or flight mode which would explain in my opinion the intensity with which he fought Zimmerman. I worked at a high school for eight years and I've seen some fights. You don't fight like that unless for what ever reason you believe your opponent intends to give you more than just a black eye. If it is your opinion that Martin over reacted it should also be your opinion that Zimmerman over reacted rather than trying to cover his ass on every ignorant move he made. When it comes to the charges I've agreed they're misguided. IMO this is not murder but rather manslaughter for that reason the whole case just may fall apart.
Grandpa Grandpa 2 years 17 weeks
Me? I am not trained in the law beyond a course on Con Law ( taught by Mario Cuomo at the time), and contract law, and those were over 50 years ago. I am basing my 'assumptions" on the writings of Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, where he became the youngest professor in the history of that school, and your law degree is from where?
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
As intriguing as your legal theories are Gramps, they don’t jibe with Florida law. In Florida, second degree murder occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life. These are not unsupported hypotheses that could suggest Zimmerman's depraved indifference to Martin's life: Zimmerman violated neighborhood watch policies by being armed and by following and confronting Martin. Zimmerman – who allegedly has been studying criminal justice - disobeyed police when he followed Martin. Zimmerman knew police were headed to the scene. Zimmerman disparaged Martin in the 911 call, and is heard to lament “they always get away.” Here is the Florida jury instruction regarding reasonable doubt: “A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.” Even supporters of Stand Your Ground say it has its limits: Sean Caranna, founder of Florida Carry, stresses that shooting in self-defense requires "a real fear your life is in danger." The jury has to decide whether Zimmerman legitimately had a REAL fear: they’ll have to consider that he and Martin were reasonably matched physically; that Zimmerman knew police were headed to the scene. Zimmerman's family doctor describes injuries he saw the day after the shooting. Pictures the night of do not show a man beaten to anywhere near a pulp. Who knows, maybe this case will set a “chicken sh!t” standard for Florida gun-toters. Kill at Will? In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted. Former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer, a major force behind the law's passage, cited her own size and age in an interview about what she would do if confronted by a younger and larger aggressor. "I'm 4-foot-11. I'm 67 years old," she said. "If you came at me, and I felt that my life was in danger or that I was going to be injured, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot you." (There was no big physical discrepancy between Zimmerman & Martin, age-wise, Zimmerman should have had the advantage - at a physical peak age, in theory more mature than Martin). According to first witnesses on the scene, Zimmerman showed pretty serious presence of mind - immediately saying he shot Martin in self-defense and having them photograph his head - suddenly very aware and willing to follow procedures, not suggestive of a person in shock.
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
Try checking a pdf of the actual autopsy report Pax. Even racist cops could measure accurately, and the cops didn't perform the autopsy. Where have you practiced law Gramps?
Grandpa Grandpa 2 years 17 weeks
You must give any doubt to the defendant, so any speculation that allows for two assumptions, under the law must break towards the defendant. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to PROVE, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. She can not give unsupported hypotheses for the jury to consider.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 17 weeks
Can you trust your source of your autopsy report? Can you trust those who did the autopsy? They are all part of that great racist ring-wing conspiracy as you feel are the local police, right? I saw a quote of a different size.
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
"Zimmerman confronts Martin, no physical force." Your preface is assumptive and wrong - I asked a question. You don't know what Zimmerman did. Prove that he did anything but talk. The autopsy report lists Trayvon as 71" - that's 5' 11" Pax, and 158 pounds.
UnDave35 UnDave35 2 years 17 weeks
"Did he obstruct Martin's ability to pass?" Did he? You don't know that he did. Prove that he did anything but talk. Your preface is assumptive and wrong.
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
How do you know Zimmerman didn't use any physical force? Did he obstruct Martin's ability to pass? Again, you're saying that it's okay to pick a fight with a random stranger and if they fight back in any way, go ahead and shoot them to death and claim self defense. If armed neighborhood watch wimps get to pick fights and kill if they fear they'll lose, it seems we should restrict their ability to have guns, because it gives them an inflated sense of self and gets innocents murdered.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 17 weeks
UnDave's view seems most plausible, though I heard some witness somewhere quoted as saying the Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck when Martin jumped on his back. Martin was 6'3", not the cute, young 13-year-old that the MSM has been showing us.
UnDave35 UnDave35 2 years 17 weeks
Zimmerman confronts Martin, no physical force. Martin pushes Zimmerman, using physical force. They roll around, Martin ends up on top, and instead of holding Zimmerman in place, begins beating him, breaking his nose, and bashing his head against the sidewalk. At that time Zimmerman feared for his life. At that point he's justified to use further force.
stephley stephley 2 years 17 weeks
Pax in one sentence you say "feeling threatened" justifies no physical response, in the next you say it isn't unreasonable that Zimmerman killed Martin because Zimmerman was "fearful for his life." What's the difference? There is a "clue" as to how Zimmerman approached Trayvon: the boy was on the phone with a friend at the time of their first encounter. The girl said Martin told her he was being followed, that he sped up and thought he had lost Zimmerman. Then she said, the man was back. "Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell." Nothing about Zimmerman's injuries suggest his life was in danger: his size suggests he should have been able to handle the teenager until the police got there, and he knew they were on the way, Martin did not. Zimmerman caused the confrontation by getting out of his car; he had every advantage in the situation. It seems according to Zimmerman apologists, it's okay to pick a fight with a random stranger and if they fight back in any way, go ahead and shoot them to death and claim self defense.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 17 weeks
"Feeling threatened" and having "hurt feelings" justify NO physical response. The evidence seems to indicate Martin went after Zimmerman because of Zimmerman's "following" him. Martin was beating Zimmerman and, as UnDave said, he was the thin-skulled plaintiff, fearful for his life, not unjustifiably. It is sad that his self-protection killed Martin, but, I doubt that it was unreasonable.
Grandpa Grandpa 2 years 17 weeks
Hypno, in fact we have no clue how or even if Zimmerman approached martin. It could have been Martin spotted Zimmerman following at a distance and turned around and approached Zimmerman. No one seems to know at this particular point.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 17 weeks
Why is it unacceptable for an unarmed person to protect themselves when they feel threatened? If Zimmerman had all the right in the world to use a deadly weapon because he felt threatened, then why didn't Martin have the right to use a NON-deadly weapon in the same situation?
UnDave35 UnDave35 2 years 17 weeks
" I have said I don't believe for one minute Zimmerman had any intention of causing bodily harm to Martin but that doesn't mean that his actions did not instigate a reaction." But was that reaction a physical confrontation? Essentially, did Martin throw the first punch? It appears very likely, given the witness statement, and what we know about Zimmerman (that he is a wimp). Was Martin's reaction justified? No.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 17 weeks
"While that is true, refusing advice is not. This is especially true if the person who refused the advice wasn't the instigator of the fight, which sounds to be correct, and only acted out of personal safety when all other options had been exhausted. I do understand that those who hate guns, those who own them, and all white men won't be able to comprehend logic." Listening to you guys make excuses for Zimmerman at every turn is really somethin. Oh and by the way ignorance can be just as much an instigator as calculated judgment. I have said I don't believe for one minute Zimmerman had any intention of causing bodily harm to Martin but that doesn't mean that his actions did not instigate a reaction. You guys act like he strolled up to Martin with a big smile on his face and said how's it goin buddy. I don't think so. None of you on the Tresugar Zimmerman defence team have offered to put your selves in Martins shoes here. That says you're only looking at half of what there is to consider which is useless. "acted out of personal safety when all other options had been exhausted" Zimmerman's actions are the ones that imposed too many options to begin with. If Martin was engaged in criminal activity I would have no problem what so ever with what Zimmerman did. The fact of the matter though as per Zimmerman is that Martin was guilty of walking down the street. Who the F confronts some one walking down the street? Neighborhood watch or not no one has the right to project upon another person the intent to commit criminal activity when all they're doing is walking down the street. And F the candy and soda, they have nothing to do with this. This was a human being simply walking down the street (as per Zimmerman), period.
UnDave35 UnDave35 2 years 17 weeks
It was not a direct order. "You don't need to do that." does not equal "Do not follow."
BiWife BiWife 2 years 17 weeks
oops, Smith & Wesson, stupid autocowreck..
BiWife BiWife 2 years 17 weeks
it wasn't advice, it was a direct order. and it didn't come from just anyone, it came from the police. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car or gone home, his gun would not have been needed. and nice way to assume things. I don't hate guns, was looking at a nice smith & weston "bodyguard" that I might get for my sister this summer (her bday is in July) with my family just last week. I have owned guns in the past, tho they are all at my folks' place now. And my entire family is white (with a little hispanic, jewish, and russian gypsy mixed in here & there), so no I don't hate all white men either. lol, some people's children...
UnDave35 UnDave35 2 years 17 weeks
While that is true, refusing advice is not. This is especially true if the person who refused the advice wasn't the instigator of the fight, which sounds to be correct, and only acted out of personal safety when all other options had been exhausted. I do understand that those who hate guns, those who own them, and all white men won't be able to comprehend logic.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 17 weeks
how is that a stretch? If you are driving a car in a reckless manner and run someone over, you're guilty of murder/manslaughter (depending on what state you're in)