George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

I did leave myself outs because (like the rest of "us") I have not seen all of the evidence. This is why my watchword has been "wait."

I am willing to speculate, to a minor extent, though, based on what is known so far:

The only mark on Trayvon Martin (other than the bullet wound, sadly enough) is a single scrape on one knuckle. It would thus appear that Trayvon must not have been on the receiving end of any fight. The same cannot be said of Zimmerman's physical condition.

Actually the autopsy report says the small abrasion was on the left ring finger, not the knuckle.

But I agree, we have seen for months that Martin was "bashing Zimmerman's face in" and one report (since retracted) that it was "MMA" style. Seems odd though that someone pounding in the face of another with repeated blows would have: (a) no damage to their knuckles, and (b) the recipient would have very little damage to their face. What damage there was being consistent with a single good shot to the face.



>>>>

I couldn't give a shit where on Martin's finger the one abrasion was. The lack of other signs of injury STILL suggest that HE was not the one on the receiving end of any assault.

Lack of damage to the hands though does and the police pictures from that night indicate that Martin was not pummeling the face "MMA" style as previously reported.

The various signs of injury on Zimmerman suggest that HE had taken some kind of a beating. Minor scrapes on face, forehead, nose. BUT, the more significant signs of injury on the back of his head. They suggest that maybe he did have his cracked against the sidewalk -- more than once. AND, lest we forget, the busted nose. Yeah. It does add up to a pretty convincing showing that HE, not Trayvon, took the beating.

Of course Zimmerman took the worst of the beating, never said he didn't.

The fundamental question that the Judge will address in the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and which the Jury will first have to decide it "Who started the hostilities?" If at either of those two stages the decision is "Martin", then Zimmerman's self defense claim is accepted. However if he is viewed as the aggressor and initiator of the hostilities - then that is a different ball game.

While it would still be understandable for Zimmerman to resort to using the firearm to kill the person - that no longer means he has automatic immunity for his actions that precipitated the event.


For example. The state may try to show that Zimmerman initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention or assault with a firearm by threatening Martin with his gun). On the other hand the state could try to show that as the aggressor Zimmerman had achieved separation between himself and Martin. (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)


>>>>

 

[taichiliberal]

My logic is not the convoluted logic, dumb ass.

Because YOU say so?

I have NEVER said that evidence is irrelevant.

You said that the evidence I pointed to is irrelevent, yet your myopic viewpoint of evidence an subsequent spin, supposition and conjecture is valid? Pardon me while I laugh at your repeated foolishness!

I did suggest that the thread you praised is not worth much.

See above response.

Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account. IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.

Repeating your drivel won't magically make it valid, as I've already addressed this in the previous post (s).

There is also no evidence of "stalking." It's a nice buzz word, but not a valid word choice in this discussion.

Read the definition....especially the part I highlighted, and then get back to me and tell me EXACTLY how that applies, because the definition does NOT set a specific time period. Zimmerman described Martin as a drugged up thug up to no good...and he followed him. He CONTINUED searching for Martin after Martin ran away, despite acknowledging that the cops had the location, were on their way and he need not continue to follow him. Hunting a guy at night with a gun....sounds like stalking to me.

Your argument (like you) is still just an empty bit of fluff. Call yourself and your contentions a "fail" and move on.

Wow, another Zimmerman Zombie bullhorns his opinion and the world stops. Get over yourself, butch.....that you can't offer nothing but parroted talking points and guesswork is plain to see in the chronology of the posts. That I can call you on it just burns your ass to no end....but hey, no one said life was easy.

Your rancid, biased, mindless conjecture is worthless.

See above responses. Unless you've got something other than schoolyard taunts, bunky....I'm done humiliating you.

Done? Dimwit, you haven't started because you don't have the tools for the job. My logic is not the convoluted logic -- not JUST because I say so any more than it was allegedly the convoluted logic on your baseless, stupid, sub-moron say so. Damn. That wasn't hard.

You've got nothing. It shows.

And you are such a pindick little flea brain fly fucker, you can't even handle the quote function.

The evidence that was "pointed to" wasn't "pointed to by you" and evidence CAN be irrelevant to a discussion or a particular point. That does not make it generally irrelevant, you shit for brain mofo. Learn how to use the quote function rather than trying to restate what others have said or not said. Among your many vast defects, an accurate reporter you aint.

You are reduced to repeating your previously refuted blather, you embarrassment to the human race, because you remain a void.

Do you know why everybody tends to laugh AT you? It's because for all your pompous arrogance, you usually expose yourself as the simpleton you are quite quickly. It is almost impossible to take any of your bullshit seriously.

Truth!

See folks, once you take these Zimmerman Zombies to task, they just have a meltdown and start babbling their wishful thinking, opinions, supposition and conjecture as fact. And note how Liability has IGNORED THE FACT that I provided a definition that he cannot dispute, and instead just keeps stamping his widdle feet while screaming schoolyard diatribes about me personally.

As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability cannot logically or factually defend his assertions when ALL THE FACTS of the case are scrutinized. So instead, he just parrots his drivel ad nauseum in various forms. Someone needs to explain to Liability that it's one thing to make a claim, but it's a whole other smoke to PROVE OR SUBSTANTIATE a claim with ALL THE FACTS pertaining to that claim.

Liability fails to do so, and attempts to cover his folly with the nonsense you read here. And that is the truth! So unless he's going to debate like a rational adult, I leave Liability to spew his predictable collection of accusations, self aggrandizing bravado, lies and repetitions.

 

[taichiliberal]

How about you try that, and come back and tell us how successful you are at being able to shout for help at the top of your lungs as Zimmerman claims he did, as heard on the 911 tapes. Also tell us how successful you are at pulling out a gun that is tucked into your waist, right where an assailant who is on top of you would be sitting. Please, oh please, conduct this experiment and come back to us, so that you can tell us for yourself just how full of shit you are.

Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman, and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving, yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing. You are so f-ing incredibly stupid.

As for the experiment you propose, let's you and I do it. I'll lay down and you get on top of me and we'll see if you can prevent me from blowing a hole in your chest, using a gun from my waistband.

How the fuck is it that you haven't killed yourself already, through incredible stupidity? Are you kept in a rubber room?

Like it or not, you Zimmerman zombies were all a flutter over the initial tale told by Zimmerman's lawyers that this superior athelete Martin was beating Zimmerman to death, and Zimmerman managed to shoot him in self defense.

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman? There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Again, Martin WAS GOING HOME until some creep in a car started stalking him...he ran to try and elude Zimmerman

He eluded, you heard the 911 call.
But then he realized he'd been dissed.....and came back.

Pure supposition and conjecture on your part, Toddles, as the phone records and testimony on ALL parts DO NOT support your theory.

Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him

Yeah, following a guy twice in 5 minutes isn't going to get you a stalking conviction, despite your whining.

You're projecting again, Toddles....YOU wanted a definition, and I gave it to you with HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE APROPO TO THE ZOMMERMAN/MARTIN CASE. TFB if you don't like it.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD (although there is NO evidence to support his description).....so Zimmerman, who is ARMED, starts following the guy. When he's spotted by Martin, who then runs away, Zimmerman pursues him. According to the girlfriend, Martin had thought he lost the creep who was following him at least once.

Anyway you slice it, Zimmerman was the instigator, and had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

But like I said, this may not even get to trial if the judge goes for the "Stand Your Ground" defense....which is interesting because no one seems to think that Martin had the right to stand his ground against a creepy stranger that night.

And the band plays on.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD

Pretty good call, considering his school suspension.......and autopsy blood test.


So it's justified to shoot a kid with a suspension for a bag with marijuana traces (no actual drugs)....and because he smoked a joint within 24 hours prior (TRACES in his blood)? And since the store video DID NOT reflect the weird actions that Zimmerman related, his story is all the more dubious. But according to YOU, Toddles, Zimmerman's a psychic!

had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

Yup. And if Trayvon had continued running home after he evaded Zimmermann's paunchy ass, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he returned and began beating on Martin's paunchy ass.


Says who? Zimmerman? Nah, he'd have NO reason to lie, would he? And remember, he pursued Martin AFTER being told the cops were on the way and it wasn't necessary, and Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him when he said he thought he evaded Zimmerman, ONLY to be CONFRONTED BY HIM AGAIN.

Now Trayvon's punk ass is dead. Deal with it.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, VISITING A NEARBY HOUSE OF HIS DAD'S GIRLFRIEND. Martin is a "punk" because some armed wanna be Neighborhood Watch clown with a history of temper related run in's with the cops and numerous FALSE ALARM calls to 911 about suspicious black guys starts tailing him at night first in a car, and then on foot. Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him. And Martin is a "punk" for being a dead man who cannot tell his side of the story, but the evidence does not bode well for Zimmerman as being wholly innocent victim.

Seems like YOU are the "punk", Toddles. And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks. You're done.

 

[Ravi]

I did leave myself outs because (like the rest of "us") I have not seen all of the evidence. This is why my watchword has been "wait."

I am willing to speculate, to a minor extent, though, based on what is known so far:

The only mark on Trayvon Martin (other than the bullet wound, sadly enough) is a single scrape on one knuckle. It would thus appear that Trayvon must not have been on the receiving end of any fight. The same cannot be said of Zimmerman's physical condition.

Actually the autopsy report says the small abrasion was on the left ring finger, not the knuckle.

But I agree, we have seen for months that Martin was "bashing Zimmerman's face in" and one report (since retracted) that it was "MMA" style. Seems odd though that someone pounding in the face of another with repeated blows would have: (a) no damage to their knuckles, and (b) the recipient would have very little damage to their face. What damage there was being consistent with a single good shot to the face.



>>>>

ACTUALLY, it DOES say the knuckle.

No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.

 

[Liability]

Actually the autopsy report says the small abrasion was on the left ring finger, not the knuckle.

But I agree, we have seen for months that Martin was "bashing Zimmerman's face in" and one report (since retracted) that it was "MMA" style. Seems odd though that someone pounding in the face of another with repeated blows would have: (a) no damage to their knuckles, and (b) the recipient would have very little damage to their face. What damage there was being consistent with a single good shot to the face.



>>>>

ACTUALLY, it DOES say the knuckle.

No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

 

[Ariux]

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman? There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose. Carry on.

Shithead, try to keep up with the news, the autopsy report about the shooting is consistent with Zimmerman's story. And, why are you concerned about imaginary pointy hoods and not the real hood warn by Trayvon? Go evolve a brain.

 

[paperview]

ACTUALLY, it DOES say the knuckle.

No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

 

[Liability]

No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

The point, as even a dimwit like you (if you were capable of being honest) is that Ravi had made a claim. There are absolutely examples where saying "you don't have to" or "you don't need to do that" does NOT mean (contrary to her contention) that you are being told to stop.

In the Zimmerman case, the dispatcher had no authority to tell a citizen not to keep an eye on a suspect. And Zimmerman had no obligation to take the advice as any kind of a directive.

Ravi was wrong. As are you.

But you sit tight. Somebody will be by in a while with those tissues you need.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're projecting again, Toddles....YOU wanted a definition, and I gave it to you with HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE APROPO TO THE ZOMMERMAN/MARTIN CASE. TFB if you don't like it.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD (although there is NO evidence to support his description).....so Zimmerman, who is ARMED, starts following the guy. When he's spotted by Martin, who then runs away, Zimmerman pursues him. According to the girlfriend, Martin had thought he lost the creep who was following him at least once.

Anyway you slice it, Zimmerman was the instigator, and had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

But like I said, this may not even get to trial if the judge goes for the "Stand Your Ground" defense....which is interesting because no one seems to think that Martin had the right to stand his ground against a creepy stranger that night.

And the band plays on.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD

Pretty good call, considering his school suspension.......and autopsy blood test.


So it's justified to shoot a kid with a suspension for a bag with marijuana traces (no actual drugs)....and because he smoked a joint within 24 hours prior (TRACES in his blood)? And since the store video DID NOT reflect the weird actions that Zimmerman related, his story is all the more dubious. But according to YOU, Toddles, Zimmerman's a psychic!

had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

Yup. And if Trayvon had continued running home after he evaded Zimmermann's paunchy ass, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he returned and began beating on Martin's paunchy ass.


Says who? Zimmerman? Nah, he'd have NO reason to lie, would he? And remember, he pursued Martin AFTER being told the cops were on the way and it wasn't necessary, and Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him when he said he thought he evaded Zimmerman, ONLY to be CONFRONTED BY HIM AGAIN.

Now Trayvon's punk ass is dead. Deal with it.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, VISITING A NEARBY HOUSE OF HIS DAD'S GIRLFRIEND. Martin is a "punk" because some armed wanna be Neighborhood Watch clown with a history of temper related run in's with the cops and numerous FALSE ALARM calls to 911 about suspicious black guys starts tailing him at night first in a car, and then on foot. Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him. And Martin is a "punk" for being a dead man who cannot tell his side of the story, but the evidence does not bode well for Zimmerman as being wholly innocent victim.

Seems like YOU are the "punk", Toddles. And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks. You're done.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD,

No, Trayvon is a punk because instead of running home, he came back and started beating on Zimmermann. Now he's a dead punk.

Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him.

Trayvon had to fight for his life when Zimmermann asked him what he was doing?

And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks.

Run away, maybe you'll survive.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I hope nobody inspects my body this carefully after I die.

ol, you and me too

at least I wont have to essplain anything since I'll be dead anyway

 

[JimBowie1958]

(Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)
>>>>

Or maybe a gun that got entangled inside Martins outer grament perhaps, so all the GSR was there?

 

[KissMy]

(Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)
>>>>

Or maybe a gun that got entangled inside Martins outer grament perhaps, so all the GSR was there?

The crazy lady witness who saw the struggle said one was on top of the other when the shot was fired. So close in fact that she could not tell who was on top. She also saw no flash indicating the gun was covered. Martin had a hoodie on over a sweat shirt. Both thick garments likely trapped all the GSR.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman? There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose. Carry on.

Shithead, try to keep up with the news, the autopsy report about the shooting is consistent with Zimmerman's story. And, why are you concerned about imaginary pointy hoods and not the real hood warn by Trayvon? Go evolve a brain.

1. First of all "Zimmerman's story" hasn't been released yet. His statements to police and his video reenactment from the next day were not part of the evidence that was released and both the prosecution and the defense are moving to keep them sealed prior to the SYG hearing and (if it goes that far) the trial before the jury.

2. Secondly, if what we "hear" in the media is consistent with the story that has been withheld then there are a couple of glaring holes that will have to be explained.

a. Lack of damage to Martin's hands if the story is that Martin was raining blows on his face (besides one small abrasion on a finger with no knuckle damage). Yet the autopsy shows only a small abrasion on one finger.

b. The bullet path resulting in a straight shot through the chest left of center of the sternum through the heart. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shot, it would be unnatural to bring the gun between them. An entrance to the side would have been more natural. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was in a horizontal place, Martin was in a vertical plane - shooting upward implies that a bullet path from lower to higher in Martin's body would be expected.

c. Now, Martin is supposed to be on top of Zimmerman, the gun fired between them (required for the straight chest shot). However, forensic analysis of Zimmerman's clothes show no GSR (exempt for one particle of lead chemically identified on the BACK of Zimmerman high right sleeve). If the bodies were that close, and with Zimmerman were on the bottom - then blowback and gravity would have worked to have GSR on Zimmerman's cloths. Lack of GSR on Zimmerman's cloths is more indicative of a straight arm shot where the arm is extended away from the body.

d. FInally, and I don't know how this fits into the events, evidence shows that Martin was wearing a shirt under the hoodie - Zimmerman's DNA was found on the shirt **UNDER** the hoodie. How did it get there.​

Forensic Rerpots and Autopsy -->> State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

(Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)
>>>>

Or maybe a gun that got entangled inside Martins outer grament perhaps, so all the GSR was there?

The crazy lady witness who saw the struggle said one was on top of the other when the shot was fired. So close in fact that she could not tell who was on top. She also saw no flash indicating the gun was covered. Martin had a hoodie on over a sweat shirt. Both thick garments likely trapped all the GSR.

Now you are citing the lady that said it was Zimmerman on top because she didn't see a muzzle flash?

OK, that's rich.


>>>>

 

[Liability]

Actually the autopsy report says the small abrasion was on the left ring finger, not the knuckle.

But I agree, we have seen for months that Martin was "bashing Zimmerman's face in" and one report (since retracted) that it was "MMA" style. Seems odd though that someone pounding in the face of another with repeated blows would have: (a) no damage to their knuckles, and (b) the recipient would have very little damage to their face. What damage there was being consistent with a single good shot to the face.



>>>>

I couldn't give a shit where on Martin's finger the one abrasion was. The lack of other signs of injury STILL suggest that HE was not the one on the receiving end of any assault.

Lack of damage to the hands though does and the police pictures from that night indicate that Martin was not pummeling the face "MMA" style as previously reported.

The various signs of injury on Zimmerman suggest that HE had taken some kind of a beating. Minor scrapes on face, forehead, nose. BUT, the more significant signs of injury on the back of his head. They suggest that maybe he did have his cracked against the sidewalk -- more than once. AND, lest we forget, the busted nose. Yeah. It does add up to a pretty convincing showing that HE, not Trayvon, took the beating.

Of course Zimmerman took the worst of the beating, never said he didn't.

The fundamental question that the Judge will address in the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and which the Jury will first have to decide it "Who started the hostilities?" If at either of those two stages the decision is "Martin", then Zimmerman's self defense claim is accepted. However if he is viewed as the aggressor and initiator of the hostilities - then that is a different ball game.

While it would still be understandable for Zimmerman to resort to using the firearm to kill the person - that no longer means he has automatic immunity for his actions that precipitated the event.


For example. The state may try to show that Zimmerman initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention or assault with a firearm by threatening Martin with his gun). On the other hand the state could try to show that as the aggressor Zimmerman had achieved separation between himself and Martin. (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)


>>>>

Once again: the so-called "Stand Your Ground" aspect of the justification law is not even relevant to this discussion. It may never be.

Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.

 

[percysunshine]

Every one on the USmessage board uses 'self defense' when posting.

This is not rocket science.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I couldn't give a shit where on Martin's finger the one abrasion was. The lack of other signs of injury STILL suggest that HE was not the one on the receiving end of any assault.

Lack of damage to the hands though does and the police pictures from that night indicate that Martin was not pummeling the face "MMA" style as previously reported.

The various signs of injury on Zimmerman suggest that HE had taken some kind of a beating. Minor scrapes on face, forehead, nose. BUT, the more significant signs of injury on the back of his head. They suggest that maybe he did have his cracked against the sidewalk -- more than once. AND, lest we forget, the busted nose. Yeah. It does add up to a pretty convincing showing that HE, not Trayvon, took the beating.

Of course Zimmerman took the worst of the beating, never said he didn't.

The fundamental question that the Judge will address in the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and which the Jury will first have to decide it "Who started the hostilities?" If at either of those two stages the decision is "Martin", then Zimmerman's self defense claim is accepted. However if he is viewed as the aggressor and initiator of the hostilities - then that is a different ball game.

While it would still be understandable for Zimmerman to resort to using the firearm to kill the person - that no longer means he has automatic immunity for his actions that precipitated the event.


For example. The state may try to show that Zimmerman initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention or assault with a firearm by threatening Martin with his gun). On the other hand the state could try to show that as the aggressor Zimmerman had achieved separation between himself and Martin. (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)


>>>>

Once again: the so-called "Stand Your Ground" aspect of the justification law is not even relevant to this discussion. It may never be.

Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense. It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.

Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree. Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances. Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take. Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know. At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment. Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>

 

[Liability]

Lack of damage to the hands though does and the police pictures from that night indicate that Martin was not pummeling the face "MMA" style as previously reported.





Of course Zimmerman took the worst of the beating, never said he didn't.

The fundamental question that the Judge will address in the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and which the Jury will first have to decide it "Who started the hostilities?" If at either of those two stages the decision is "Martin", then Zimmerman's self defense claim is accepted. However if he is viewed as the aggressor and initiator of the hostilities - then that is a different ball game.

While it would still be understandable for Zimmerman to resort to using the firearm to kill the person - that no longer means he has automatic immunity for his actions that precipitated the event.


For example. The state may try to show that Zimmerman initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention or assault with a firearm by threatening Martin with his gun). On the other hand the state could try to show that as the aggressor Zimmerman had achieved separation between himself and Martin. (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)


>>>>

Once again: the so-called "Stand Your Ground" aspect of the justification law is not even relevant to this discussion. It may never be.

Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense. It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.

Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree. Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances. Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take. Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know. At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment. Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>

If Martin is on top of Zimmerman, cracking Z's noggin into the concrete, placing Z in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, Z is entitled to defend himself. Period.

And if the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.

But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that. If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him. If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what? The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself. The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.

 

[KissMy]

Or maybe a gun that got entangled inside Martins outer grament perhaps, so all the GSR was there?

The crazy lady witness who saw the struggle said one was on top of the other when the shot was fired. So close in fact that she could not tell who was on top. She also saw no flash indicating the gun was covered. Martin had a hoodie on over a sweat shirt. Both thick garments likely trapped all the GSR.

Now you are citing the lady that said it was Zimmerman on top because she didn't see a muzzle flash?

OK, that's rich.

She is crazy. She admits she could not see & says she feels like the broad man was on top because he got up. Bottom line is it was dark & a muzzle flash would have been clearly visible. It would have light up their bodies & surroundings. She was either not actually looking when the shot was fired or it was not at arms length.