George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Zimmerman states that Martin attacked him, and yet another Zimmerman zombie takes it as gospel, because Zimmerman has no reason to lie and dead men tell no tales.

Give me a fucking break!

Zimmerman had ALREADY given enough location to the 911 dispatch for them to send the cops....that's why the dispatch told him it was NOT necessary to continue following Martin, to which Zimmerman replied, "OKAY".

Zimmerman PURSUED a man that he stated was "running away", and there was no need to get out of his car to check street signs. So once again, Zimmerman's own words and actions cast doubt on his story.

Martin was being stalked by a STRANGER with a GUN first by car and then on foot......so why doesn't he have the right to STAND his GROUND and fight for his life?

Had Zimmerman stayed in the car, Martin would be alive.

Martin was being stalked by a STRANGER with a GUN first by car and then on foot......so why doesn't he have the right to STAND his GROUND and fight for his life?

If Zimmerman had knocked down Trayvon and beat his head against the sidewalk, Trayvon would have every right to fight back. Is that what you think happened?


No stupid, I pointing out the FACTS from the 911 dispatch call....Zimmerman had given enough location for the cops to be dispatched.....he was told this. THAT is why he was told it was no longer necessary to follow a suspect WHO WAS RUNNING AWAY. But when asked where he wanted to meet the cops, Zimmerman suddenly becomes all confused and was reluctant to give out his home address, babbling about he can't locate Martin and doesn't want to give out his address (WTF? How is Martin tapping into the 911 call?).
Zimmerman was STILL crusing for Martin, WHO LIVED IN AND HAD FAMILY IN THE AREA AND WAS GOING HOME! The confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman...Martin didn't know him from a whole in the wall. If you're stalked by some guy in a car and then confronted on foot, and that guy has a gun, you damn sure fight for your life.

Unfortunately, for your side, being followed by a guy who lives in the area didn't give Trayvon the right to assault the guy following him.

And a guy who lives in the area and has family in the area doesn't deserve to be stalked, accosted and killed by some asshole with a history of temper related encounters with the cops, a wanna-be citizens watch attitude, and a documented bent about (falslely) reporting on black folk as suspects. Unfortunately for you Zimmerman zombies, the FACTS have a habit to thwarting your beliefs.

THAT is why he was told it was no longer necessary to follow a suspect WHO WAS RUNNING AWAY.

Poor Trayvon, he ran away and made the mistake of coming back.

And a guy who lives in the area and has family in the area doesn't deserve to be stalked,

Stalked? Care to post the legal definition?

 

[asterism]

What an incredibly stupid shithead you are, Tachiliberal. In the same breath that you accuse the police of incompetence, you appeal to their judgement that Zimmerman should have been charged/arrested.

Nevermind that the Chief Detective in the case never said Zimmerman should be charged with anything.

It's truly sad when dimwitted little sheet wearers like Ariux try their hand at debating a subject based on the facts, and instead rely on their biased myopia to discern all information.

Case in point: Ariux confuses the Chief of Police with the Chief of Detectives....the chief of Detectives who was in charge of the case was the one who filed an affidavit for arrest.

Compounding his ignorance, Ariux then asserts that if you criticize the police for not doing a proper job of securing the crime scene, then you cannot point out that the chief detective determined their was grounds for an arrest based on his interview with Zimmerman.

Someone needs to educate our dear pointy hooded Ariux that many a criminal case has been lost because the foresnics were botched, or someone wasn't Mirandized properly. Zimmerman may NOT even get to trial if a judge goes for the Stand Your Ground defense. But if he does, the case may again fall apart due to poor police work, as the NY Times article I cited shows.

The discussion on this thread however, is about what evidence is available and how that relates to the credibility of Zimmerman's claims of self defense. To date, Zimmerman's story just doesn't play well, as the damning 911 dispatch call record shows. This combined with Zimmerman's own personal police run-ins and other information does not bode well as to his mindset and actions on that night.

I refer to jokers like Ariux as "Zimmerman Zombies" because their brains effectively go dead the second facts and logic contradict their beliefs. And as the chronology of the posts shows, Ariux is indeed dead from the neck up on this issue.

Bump not because Ariux is a retard but because a poTiental murder might get away scot free because conservates pased a law that makes murder legal and because some police officers are less component then a fucking 5 year old. I mean seriously the guy kills someone and you don’t take him into custody.

They did take him into custody. There's even a video to prove it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-_Qn9ZEj9Q]George Zimmerman in handcuffs night of shooting - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asterism]

C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.

yet the photos show minor cuts

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.

I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for, IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.

Law Enforcement has no say in the matter. If someone is conscious, it's their choice if they wish to go to the hospital or refuse treatment. You see "minor cuts?" I see head injuries. There are very few head injuries that are minor.

 

[asterism]

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)

That's not proof that this is standard procedure, nor is it proof that it would have happened in this case.

 

[asterism]

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

DCF was not at this scene, therefore their policies do not apply.

 

[earlycuyler]

* * * *

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

It's the zombie stand your ground and self-protection act!

No, its the "you dont get to shoot people because you do stupid thing act".

 

[earlycuyler]

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?"

Getting away after having done what ?

 

[earlycuyler]

In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable. Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I

And in the end, THAT doesn't matter, because the State Attorney office told that investigator - the only one out of several who wanted an arrest - that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything.

"Ultimately avoidable" does NOT mean "criminally liable". Nowhere in any law is it codified that citizens are obligated to avoid all possible confrontation or conflict at all costs.

George Zimmerman has done no damage to any rights, but fools like you sure are trying to.

See, this is where you come off like a pompous wind bag just like liability. If I am a fool for saying Zimmerman screwed up, then you are a fool for saying he was good to go for shooting Trayvon. And yes you dolts, Zimmerman had done plenty to put MY rights to carry concealed in danger. Because he wanted to play cop, and decided to shoot his way out of an ass whooping, the stand your ground, make my day laws will all be questioned. Already are here. You, liability and the rest are only defending Zimmerman because to you twerps, its a political issue. Ill be sure to include you in my "I told you so" I had planned for a few others.

 

[rdean]

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?

The question stands.

 

[Peach]

yet the photos show minor cuts

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.

I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for, IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.

I'm unsure what you are referring to in area I've bolded. My response is to refusal of medical care. He'd just shot someone. Ever hear of shock? Remorse? Guilt? Even if self-defense? Ever hear of police officers having similar problems? Military members? PTSD? Think of rape victims that hit the showers with scalding water, before reporting or not.

All possible, but the fact remains he could held for medical observation against his will.

 

[Peach]

yet the photos show minor cuts

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.

I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for, IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.

IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.

Link?

Posted above.

 

[Ravi]

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.

If you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch?

If you feel threatened, yes.

 

[Ravi]

Once Zimmerman abadoned his surveillance and went back to his car, Martin's right was to continue on going home. Trayvon Lives. Trayvon decides to administer some hood justice, Trayvon Dies.

If that is what happened. The girlfriends testimony has Zimmerman confronting Martin and the last words that Martin said, according to the girlfriend, were, "get off, get off."

 

[Ravi]

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: and



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, tha 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.

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.

If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.

That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.

No. It that absolutely is NOT what the so-called "stand your ground" law is -- not in a nutshell and not at all.

But yes, the "test" does involve the subjective one of "reasonableness." That becomes a jury question -- the determination of which is founded upon the EVIDENCE.

Since we do not HAVE actual evidence -- even if the justification law were applicable as to Trayvon -- we could not render any valid conclusion as to the "reasonableness" of his alleged "belief."

Yes, it is actually.

And in many cases a jury doesn't define "reasonableness" as a judge can define it before the case ever goes to trial or allows charges to be filed to begin with. In some cases, the police themselves or the prosecuting attorney don't even bother ASKING for a judge's ruling because they believe charges will get thrown out under SYG. And no arrest is made.

 

[Liability]

If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.

That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.

No. It that absolutely is NOT what the so-called "stand your ground" law is -- not in a nutshell and not at all.

But yes, the "test" does involve the subjective one of "reasonableness." That becomes a jury question -- the determination of which is founded upon the EVIDENCE.

Since we do not HAVE actual evidence -- even if the justification law were applicable as to Trayvon -- we could not render any valid conclusion as to the "reasonableness" of his alleged "belief."

Yes, it is actually.

No, it isn't actually.

And in many cases a jury doesn't define "reasonableness" as a judge can define it before the case ever goes to trial or allows charges to be filed to begin with. In some cases, the police themselves or the prosecuting attorney don't even bother ASKING for a judge's ruling because they believe charges will get thrown out under SYG. And no arrest is made.

Holy shit. You are very confused. OF COURSE a cop or prosecutor can elect not to make an arrest or to lodge formal charges before a judge gets a crack at what might otherwise be a case.

And yes, some cops DO conclude that it would be improper to make an arrest where the circumstances suggest that justification (that's the proper term; you keep using "stand your ground" which doesn't even apply here) is a complete defense.

Further, even if the cops make the arrest, the prosecutors have "prosecutorial discretion" to refuse to file criminal charges. They can dismiss the case before charges are ever filed in court, thus obviating the need for a judge to pass any such judgment.

But if the police choose to make the arrest and the prosecutors lodge the criminal charges in court, in a case like the Trayvon Martin shooting, the prosecutor can do so by going to a Grand Jury (which is what OUGHT TO HAVE HAPPENED HERE) or just file a prosecutor's information. In either case, the Court might very well have to DEFINE the term for a jury (if the case goes to trial).

Stand your ground -- properly understood (which is not the way YOU comprehend it) -- is a PART of the law of "justification" or "self defense." Basically all it says and means is that if you are under attack and have REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury, you are not required to run away. There is, in other words, no duty under those circumstances to retreat before you can use force yourself.

Nevertheless, one is still not entitled to use force to defend one's self from an attack that has not even taken place. MERELY being followed (or run-after) is NOT the same as a basis for reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm which might warrant your use of force (or deadly physical force).

 

[starcraftzzz]

The Latest on the Trayvon Martin Case | ThinkProgress
1) Zimmerman bullied a co-worker due to his race
2) 1 eyewitness says there was no fighting at time of gun shot
3) A police call from a women says that Zimmerman has violent tendencies and is capable of starting a fight

Zimmerman wasn
^Forensic experts conclude that Zimmerman was not the person calling for help on 911 call.

Zimmerman's MySpace Page Shows Disparaging Remarks Towards Mexicans
^Zimmer posts racist/sexist post on his myspace.

BREAKING: George Zimmerman Launches Website, Features Vandalized Black Cultural Center | ThinkProgress
^Zimmerman creates website with picture of vandalism asking people to send him money

Daily Kos: Was the fighting over when Zimmerman shot Trayvon?
^More on Girl witness. Says she heard Martin tell someone to get off

Trayvon Martin's Phone Call Undermines Killer Account | ThinkProgress
^Before/during the start of the incident Trayvon was on the phone with a girl. She notes that he notices someone following him so he begins walking faster; a bit later he confirms that he’s being followed so she convinces him to start running; he starts runny then she hears, ““Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’” And she hears Trayvons head set fall.
This makes it clear that Zimmerman lied when he said he was walking back to his truck

What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012) | ThinkProgress
^1) Zimmerman describes to the police that Trayvon is suspicious because he’s walking
2) Zimmerman followed Trayvon after the police told him not to
3) Martins teachers describe him as an A-B student
4) Martin has no criminal record
5) Zimmerman was charged in 2005 with resisting arrest and with violence/battery on an officer.
6) According to neighbors Zimmerman was fixated on young black males committing crime
7) Neighbors complained about Zimmerman’s aggressiveness
8) Zimmerman was not a member of Neighborhood watch and did violated their guidelines.
9) One witness reports that what she saw was not what Zimmerman said happened
10) Police reports do not mention any physical damage done to Zimmerman after the killing
11) Zimmerman in 2011 calls the police saying there is a suspicious black male around 8 years old.
12) Eyewitness and EMS records show that the night of the shooting Zimmerman sustained no serious injuries

 

[Liability]

Not if you feel threatened. In Florida.

If you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch?

If you feel threatened, yes.

False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice." But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.

 

[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?"

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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?"

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked

 

[Ariux]

So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked

It's not stalking a person. It's coon hunting.