George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then you lied. Good to know.

No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.

Yes. You did.

Trayvon didn't assault Zimmermann? How do you know?

 

[BDBoop]

No I don't.

Then you lied. Good to know.

No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.

No confusion involved. You made an assertion you are unable to prove. In other words - lied.

 

[Annie]

All of this brings up a post a made a month or so ago. Zimmerman has been charged, let the courts decide. Shut up about it already, at least until it's tried.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack but theirs a phone call from Trayson and a Phone call from Zimmerman that show he was not attacked so according to you it means he was attacked. Jesus how many logical jumps are you going to make?

I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack

Except his bloody head wounds and facial injuries.
And the winesses who said they saw Trayvon hitting him.
Other than that, nothing.

Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!

I actually have no trouble believing that a stupid bitch like you knows people who give themselves closed fractures of the nose while shaving. Idiots tend to stick together in herds, so I'm told.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!

You don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.

The legally armed man didn't know a young felony assaulter was prowling his neighborhood.

"Felony assaulter." You'll need to prove that assertion.

YOU demanding proof of an assertion is just about the funniest thing I've seen today. I knew you were a hypocritical imbecile, but you must actually be taking lessons and practicing at it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you lied. Good to know.

No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.

No confusion involved. You made an assertion you are unable to prove. In other words - lied.

Lying is making an assertion you know is not true, not an assertion you can't prove.

 

[MeBelle]

Facial injuries? I have seen worse from 1) shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. 2) Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often"shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!

1) I would suggest using a moisturizing shave cream, in addition to actual moisturizing lotion after shaving, so as to not cut yourself while shaving.

2) Let's not forget that Zimmerman was seen by a Doctor the next day.

3) Your words that I have bolded indicate a racist undertone.

Respectfully,
~Belle

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then you lied. Good to know.

No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.

No confusion involved. You made an assertion you are unable to prove. In other words - lied.

I made an assertion. If you can disprove it, go ahead.
No lie involved, even if I was wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.

No confusion involved. You made an assertion you are unable to prove. In other words - lied.

Lying is making an assertion you know is not true, not an assertion you can't prove.

Thanks for trying to clear up her confusion.
It takes a village.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack but theirs a phone call from Trayson and a Phone call from Zimmerman that show he was not attacked so according to you it means he was attacked. Jesus how many logical jumps are you going to make?

I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack

Except his bloody head wounds and facial injuries.
And the winesses who said they saw Trayvon hitting him.
Other than that, nothing.

Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!

Just an FYI, Zimmerman can't possibly be a skinhead, he is black.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...mmermans-afro-peruvian-great-grandfather.html

 

[Ravi]

From what evidence is now available it appears that Martin was the aggressor and physically assaulted the smaller man. Zimmerman's first choice in defending himself was not deadly force. He hollered for help as his head was being slammed into the concrete sidewalk, which is of course a deadly weapon. When help did not arrive before he became fearful for his life he did what anyone fortunate to have a gun within reach at such a moment would do and fired on his attacker. That is what the evidence at this point seems to support, we all will not know until more of the evidence becomes available.

What evidence is that? The conflicting witness accounts? Oh, right, you only believe the witnesses that agree with you and not the ones that don't.

There are a couple people who were there and said that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete as he yelled for help. That is a powerful statement and should be enough to exonerate Zimmerman. I haven't seen any other eye witness testimony that disputes that fact.

There is not one witness that stated Zimmerman's head was pounded into the concrete.

There is one witness that said it was Zimmerman that was crying for help, but now he has recanted that statement in public.

There is at least one witness that believed it was Zimmerman on top.

It's fascinating how strong confirmation bias is with you.

 

[Ravi]

He was punching a man's face

Was he? And if he was, why? I'd punch your face if you were stalking me and it turned out you were armed and intent on shooting me.

Punching someone who is following you is against the law.

Intent on shooting? Wow!

You should use those psychic powers to do the world some good. You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?

Not if you feel threatened. In Florida.

 

[Ravi]

The flowchart has a serious flaw, it assumes Martin is actually innocent.

He wasn't doing anything wrong, so yeah, he was innocent.

You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing. If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.

Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.

 

[Ravi]

Following =/= Chasing or Running

Oh I see so following and then running after someone is not chasing or running... Get a clue

There really is no evidence, much less "proof," that Zimmerman "ran."

But, let's not quibble.

Let's pretend that the proof is there.

Ok.

So, in following a guy he found suspicious who was getting away -- after the neighborhood watch guy had called the police about him -- Zimmerman chose to "run."

And?

In your twisted little mind, does this justify Martin turning around on Zimmerman and attacking him (if Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first)?

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to try to claim that there's ANY evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin before Martin struck Zimmerman. Are you?

Did you realize that being followed (even by a guy who is "running") is NOT a crime and does not constitute an "attack?"

If your scenario is true, and if Martin felt Zimmerman was a threat, yes, under SYG, Martin would be justified in doing so.

 

[rdean]

If your being stalked and you try to get away and you can't

Zimmermann lost track of him. Trayvon had already gotten away.

what do you do

Apparently, you circle back, assault the guy legally following you and catch a bullet.
what do you do

Or you get tired of being chased and you stand your ground not knowing your stalker had a concealed weapon. Remember, Trayvon was just a kid.

Standing your ground doesn't mean you can start beating someone's head on the sidewalk.

It is if Zimmerman attacked first. You don't know if he did or didn't. And you still haven't explained why it's OK to stalk someone. Don't you know how scary that is?

 

[rdean]

I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack

Except his bloody head wounds and facial injuries.
And the winesses who said they saw Trayvon hitting him.
Other than that, nothing.

Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!

You don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.

The legally armed man didn't know a young felony assaulter was prowling his neighborhood.

Say it was one of your sons being stalked. What would you tell him to do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He wasn't doing anything wrong, so yeah, he was innocent.

You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing. If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.

Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.

No it isn't. the stand your ground law is all about not having to run away just because some asshole is making noise. That duty to retreat stuff you love doesn't protect anyone but the criminals. Yes, Martin had a right to stand his ground if Zimmerman attacked him. That right actually ended once Zimmerman was on the ground, so that makes Martin the one that was wrong if the witness that identified him on top is accurate, even under the stand your ground law.

 

[Liability]

He wasn't doing anything wrong, so yeah, he was innocent.

You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing. If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.

Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.

No. It isn't.

 

[Liability]

Oh I see so following and then running after someone is not chasing or running... Get a clue

There really is no evidence, much less "proof," that Zimmerman "ran."

But, let's not quibble.

Let's pretend that the proof is there.

Ok.

So, in following a guy he found suspicious who was getting away -- after the neighborhood watch guy had called the police about him -- Zimmerman chose to "run."

And?

In your twisted little mind, does this justify Martin turning around on Zimmerman and attacking him (if Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first)?

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to try to claim that there's ANY evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin before Martin struck Zimmerman. Are you?

Did you realize that being followed (even by a guy who is "running") is NOT a crime and does not constitute an "attack?"

If your scenario is true, and if Martin felt Zimmerman was a threat, yes, under SYG, Martin would be justified in doing so.

Wrong. He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself. But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and reasonably consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.

The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are:

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

and

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances. It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges. There are no charges. He's dead. The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.

To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.

But even if the statute were applicable to him, before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary. That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . . against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." And he would have no duty to retreat IF -- but ONLY IF -- he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him.

Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were. SO, nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun. Nobody can say, for instance, that the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used. Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death. Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.

 

[starcraftzzz]

You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing. If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.

Actually Trayson was on the phone so we know what he was doing, he was walking and saw some one following him so he walked faster then the guy kept following him so he began to run then the phone drops and the end result is Trayson dead.
If your being stalked and you try to get away and you can't what do you do and when you do it what is it?

If your being stalked and you try to get away and you can't

Zimmermann lost track of him. Trayvon had already gotten away.

what do you do

Apparently, you circle back, assault the guy legally following you and catch a bullet.
what do you do

Yes because what a racist stalker who killed someone who is facing possibly death penalty says is 100% true but what the recorded evidence and witness say is totally bogus. Jesus.