George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend? She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.

Is there an particular reason we should believe Zimmerman, he's only charged with Murder so it's not like he's unbiased?

Add to that his credibility has already been damaged by the fact that he failed to disclose his financial assets as part of the bail process as required under Florida Statute 903.046 which could be charged as a felony 3 under Florida Statute 903.035.

Add to that appears to be forensic inconsistencies between, what we have been led to believe since his statements have not been released, that will need further examination.


>>>>

Wow. The exact same diversion, in almost the exact same words, from two different trolls. It's like someone somewhere is pumping out talking points to you pissants.

I read posts linearly and respond typically in that order. Don't like it, that's your problem.

Try answering the question as though you actually had a pair, poltroon. Is there any reason AT ALL to believe Martin's girlfriend's story?

Actually that is an unanswerable question, is there any reason to believe AT ALL any person's testimony at trial. The testimony will be evaluated by the jury, that's their job. Until that time, her statements are what they are.

Is there evidence that the phone call actually occurred? Yes there is.

Does it sound like her testimony will conflict with what we've heard (2nd and 3rd hand) about what Zimmerman told the police? Sounds like it will.

When it comes to credibility, the jury will weigh the delay in coming forward, was it her or her parents that did that. The jury will also likely way Zimmerman's credibility. Does the clubhouse security video taken at the time Zimmerman called the dispatcher and listed on the evidence report show Martin doing anything "suspicious"? If so Zimmerman's credibility goes up, if not Zimmerman's credibility goes down. During the dispatcher call Zimmerman identified Martin as in his late teens (on tape) but at the bail hearing, under oath, he said he thought at the time Martin was only a couple of years younger then himself. Does Martin's attempt at justification on the stand by changing the story from the recorded one add or detract form Zimmerman's credibility. Then of course there is the whole credibility thing about Zimmerman and his wife making known false statements as part of the bail process in an attempt to get him classified as indigent for a lower bail when they are recorded on tape as knowing about and changing password on accounts with financial assets of about $155,000.

If anyone ought to be really worried about being believed by the jury, it's probably Mr. Zimmerman.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what, pray tell, do you think the jury will make of "This is what I told the cops when they initially asked me, and this is what I told cops after a months-long media feeding frenzy full of screeching protesters and people making death threats"?

My bet is that they'll give more weight to the statement he made BEFORE he was told what he was "supposed" to say.

"Before he was told what he was 'supposed' to say."



Sorry, I didn't know the conversation was going off in to conspiracy theory land. If that's the case, please enjoy yourself.



>>>>

Thank you. Your surrender is accepted. Toddle along.

No surrender given, none intended.

If you want to have a discussion based on reality and not conspiracy theories about witnesses being told what to say - I'll be around.


>>>>

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well, beyond the fact that the evidence supports his story and not hers

Untrue. The evidence, to include Zimmerman's own inconsistencies, does not support any version of his story.

HE doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecution does, beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is where you are wrong. Zimmerman is presenting an affirmative defense, which means that he will have a burden to present positive proof of his claim of self defense. Aside from that, the evidence that is known so far is not consistent with the story that he has presented.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could sack up and answer the question, instead of trying to divert. Is there any reason AT ALL that we should believe Martin's girlfriend's story? Is there any evidence AT ALL that supports her tale of what happened?

Unfortunately, you've made an illogical presentation. You challenge us for a reason to believe one story, while rebuking any apply the same standard to the story which you have chosen to believe.

FYI, if you say, "The fact that Martin's dead", you will have conceded defeat, so try and come up with a REAL argument.

Unfortunately for you, I've made no such argument. Your straw man fails.

Or just tuck tail and run, like always. Cowardice is what I expect from you.

Unfortunately for you, your ad hominem fails.

 

[beagle9]

Unless of course Zimmerman confronted Martin and initiated hostilities.



>>>>

That's the $64,000 question.

No EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt.

So a corrupt prosecutor and a friendly judge will unconstitutionally incarcerate a defendant and force him to plead out.

.

Nope, that would be up to a jury to decide if the evidence supports Murder 2.

Which I personally don't believe it does - at this point. But we haven't seen all the testimony by witnesses presented, nor Zimmerman's story to the police, nor the analysis of the forensic evidence. However, from the girlfriends statement it appears that Zimmerman went beyond "observation" at the point he approached Martin and the forensics may be in contradiction to the story we were told was Zimmerman's side of the story.

Maybe Manslaughter, because of lack of prior intent, but that is still "iffy".



>>>>

Zimmerman approached Martin first ?

I thought Martin approached Zimmerman to begin with (came closer to Zimmerman while Zimmerman was observing Martin as a suspicious looking character in the neighborhood at night, and in the rain), just as it is stated in the 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to describe the suspect, and Zimmerman was having trouble doing that because of the hoody, and this until Martin began approaching Zimmerman (coming closer to him)-("wait he is coming/walking closer to me"), Zimmerman said, where as this is when Zimmerman was able to give the description to the dispatcher/911 operator in which he (the operator) was asking for once this took place.

 

[Ariux]

Well, beyond the fact that the evidence supports his story and not hers

Untrue. The evidence, to include Zimmerman's own inconsistencies, does not support any version of his story.

It's the Defense's job to keep racist pieces of shit, like yourself, off of the jury. Zimmerman has a story and the evidence supports his story. Other evidence supports that you have shit for brains.

Zimmerman is presenting an affirmative defense, which means that he will have a burden to present positive proof of his claim of self defense.

Even though Zimmerman will have an affirmative defense, the Prosecution still has a burden to refute that affirmative defense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's the $64,000 question.

No EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt.

So a corrupt prosecutor and a friendly judge will unconstitutionally incarcerate a defendant and force him to plead out.

.

Nope, that would be up to a jury to decide if the evidence supports Murder 2.

Which I personally don't believe it does - at this point. But we haven't seen all the testimony by witnesses presented, nor Zimmerman's story to the police, nor the analysis of the forensic evidence. However, from the girlfriends statement it appears that Zimmerman went beyond "observation" at the point he approached Martin and the forensics may be in contradiction to the story we were told was Zimmerman's side of the story.

Maybe Manslaughter, because of lack of prior intent, but that is still "iffy".



>>>>

Zimmerman approached Martin first ?

Based on the girlfriends statement, Martin conveyed to her that Zimmerman was getting closer to him.

I thought Martin approached Zimmerman to begin with (came closer to Zimmerman...

Probably true.

Supposedly Zimmerman's story was he was leaving the complex on his way to the store, that would mean he was leaving the community at the time that Martin was coming in. If you look at the topography of the community (Use Google Maps and enter "1230 Twin Trees Lane, Sanford FL". Zimmerman's truck location on Twin Trees Lane would have been between Martin and the address he was returning to. To continue toward the house he would have had to walk toward the truck to pass it.

... while Zimmerman was observing Martin as a suspicious looking character in the neighborhood at night, and in the rain), just as it is stated in the 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to describe the suspect, and Zimmerman was having trouble doing that because of the hoody, and this until Martin began approaching Zimmerman (coming closer to him)-("wait he is coming/walking closer to me"), Zimmerman said, where as this is when Zimmerman was able to give the description to the dispatcher/911 operator in which he (the operator) was asking for once this took place.

Check the audio. Zimmerman makes his opening statement about someone acting suspicious, the first question the dispatcher asks is for a description. Zimmerman doesn't equivocate, he says "He looks black." No mention of not being identify a description based on a hoodie.


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

The injuries (regardless of how minor you might deem them to be) and his broken nose and the marks on his face -- plus the near absence of any scrapes on Trayvon Martin -- would seem to suggest at least that Zimmerman was the victim of some kind of beating/attack/assault.

"Attack" and "Assault" imply the Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor in terms of hostilities.

That is unknown at that time. Zimmerman's injuries imply only that he took a "beating" not necessarily who initiated the initial "assault" or "attack".



>>>>

No. It doesn't. Attack and assault are words that have their standard meaning. If I walk up to you to "confront" you verbally and you, offended, punch me in my nose, I have not assaulted you in ANY way. You have assaulted me.

Where is there ANY evidence that Zimmerman laid so much as a finger on Martin? Martin aint talkin'. I know of no witness saying any such thing.

Since there is NO evidence that anybody BUT Zimmerman got struck in ANY way, there is no basis to speculate about "initial aggressor" stuff -- which does not mean what you seem to imagine anyway.

Ummm, there is such a thing as verbal assault and physical assault, so your claim to not having assaulted someone in anyway, could be challenged in that respect wouldn't you think ? Just saying is all...........It may be that the court would slap the hand of the verbal assault offender, while being very hard on the physical assault offender as is found in a case, yet this is what happens when taking all facts into consideration when judging a case completely & fairly.

 

[Liability]

"Attack" and "Assault" imply the Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor in terms of hostilities.

That is unknown at that time. Zimmerman's injuries imply only that he took a "beating" not necessarily who initiated the initial "assault" or "attack".



>>>>

No. It doesn't. Attack and assault are words that have their standard meaning. If I walk up to you to "confront" you verbally and you, offended, punch me in my nose, I have not assaulted you in ANY way. You have assaulted me.

Where is there ANY evidence that Zimmerman laid so much as a finger on Martin? Martin aint talkin'. I know of no witness saying any such thing.

Since there is NO evidence that anybody BUT Zimmerman got struck in ANY way, there is no basis to speculate about "initial aggressor" stuff -- which does not mean what you seem to imagine anyway.

Ummm, there is such a thing as verbal assault and physical assault, so your claim to not having assaulted someone in anyway, could be challenged in that respect wouldn't you think ? Just saying is all...........It may be that the court would slap the hand of the verbal assault offender, while being very hard on the physical assault offender as is found in a case, yet this is what happens when taking all facts into consideration when judging a case completely & fairly.

It looks like you might have the germ of a "thought," there, but next time you might want try English.

There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault.

In any event, your quibble is pointless.

Rather than babbling and burping as you are presently doing, try to man up a little.

POINT us to ANY "evidence" known to date that says that G. Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon Martin. I'll save you some time. You can't.

NOW be honest enough to acknowledge that there IS pretty good evidence that Trayvon Martin assaulted G. Zimmerman.

So, now, when asking the faux question about who was the alleged "initial aggressor," try not to pretend that there is ANY evidence -- or any prospect of getting any evidence -- that G. Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Because it doesn't exist and there is no reason to believe it ever will exist.

We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.

That's mere unsupported fiction.

Once again the so-called "stand your ground" "law" has exactly NO applicability here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.

That's mere unsupported fiction.

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

 

[Liability]

We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.

That's mere unsupported fiction.

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.

That's mere unsupported fiction.

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

 

[taichiliberal]

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

I applaud your objective approach to this subject...and how you systematically point out how folk who desperately want to defend the "Stand Your Ground" laws and Zimmerman "move the goal post" whenever they cannot logically and factually support their contentions and assertions. Keep it up!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

I applaud your objective approach to this subject...and how you systematically point out how folk who desperately want to defend the "Stand Your Ground" laws and Zimmerman "move the goal post" whenever they cannot logically and factually support their contentions and assertions. Keep it up!

What?

He did no such thing. He was engaged in conversation with ONE PERSON, duh.

There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.

There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulte GZ.

But maybe you can pretend other wise no matter what the facts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

WW, do you really think that a jury will return a guilty verdict if a person were arrested for a purely verbal assault with no violence?

I rather doubt a prosecutor would even take it to a grand jury.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.

There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulte GZ.

But maybe you can pretend other wise no matter what the facts.

And this is why you are an idiot. There's "plenty of evidence" that Martin assaulted Zimmerman? Like what? Zimmerman's scrapes? How is that "plenty" of evidence of anything? All that shows is that a scuffle took place. You're entire position is based on nothing more than a bias and desire for Zimmerman to be innocent.

 

[Liability]

There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.

There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulte GZ.

But maybe you can pretend other wise no matter what the facts.

And this is why you are an idiot. There's "plenty of evidence" that Martin assaulted Zimmerman? Like what? Zimmerman's scrapes? How is that "plenty" of evidence of anything? All that shows is that a scuffle took place. You're entire position is based on nothing more than a bias and desire for Zimmerman to be innocent.

No no, muddled. You are projecting. THERE IS in fact plenty of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Zim is the one with the broken nose. Zim had the minor scrapes or abrasions on his face. Zimmerman had the multiple cuts/abrasions to the BACK of his head. By contrast, Martin had a scrape on a finger. So, it DOES look quite clearly as though Zim was the one on the receiving end.

I have no idea if Zim is innocent or not. But YOUR position stems from your evident desire to see him found guilty. You and other twits like you are the ones busy prejudging. Your strident calls for "justice" are actually the yowlings of a mob. You are so engrossed in prejudging the guy's guilt that any voice that says "wait for the evidence " strikes YOU as being a claim that Zim is innocent.

 

[Liability]

Florida Statue 784.011

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

Nice try at spin, WW, but you remain wrong.

A mere verbal confrontation will not suffice as an assault no matter how far you wish to stretch reality.

As I noted before, there must be a concomitant THREAT.

Physical contact may not be required in all cases, but more than mere words ARE required. AT the barest of minimums, the words have to include a threat which -- under those specific circumstances -- place the person in REASONABLE fear of IMMINENT great bodily harm or death.

If you think there's some evidence which has been disseminated to the public, so far, that shows that Trayvon Martin was confronted by ANY verbal threat from GZ at all, much LESS a threat which was then and there coupled with an apparent ability to fulfill the threat, much LESS one which would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent serious harm -- then I admit I haven't seen it or heard of it.

That being the case, if it is, then Martin would not have been legally privileged to lay even a finger on GZ.

 

[LilOlLady]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.
A verbal assault can be a threat and when it is felt as a threat, stand your ground should applly. Zimmerman did something to provoke Trayvon to beat his ass. Maybe Trayvon saw the gun and felt threatened and responded by standing his gound and attacking Zimmerman first. The little fuck was stalking him with a gun and that is a threat.

If the verbal assault puts someone in fear for their well being and/or safety then yes, you can be arrested for it. This is a class 5 assault.

 

[MaxCha]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.
A verbal assault can be a threat and when it is felt as a threat, stand your ground should applly. Zimmerman did something to provoke Trayvon to beat his ass. Maybe Trayvon saw the gun and felt threatened and responded by standing his gound and attacking Zimmerman first. The little fuck was stalking him with a gun and that is a threat.

If the verbal assault puts someone in fear for their well being and/or safety then yes, you can be arrested for it. This is a class 5 assault.

And so Trayvon Martin's response to seeing a gun was to attack GZ?

And if Trayvon had seen the gun, and if GZ was pointing the gun at him, then I seriously doubt GZ would have let the kid break his nose and bloody his head the way he did. He would have shot him immediately.

The way I see it, Travon felt threatened and attacked GZ first because GZ was following him. But by nature of his attack, he opened up the gateway to being shot. Trayvon did not have any cuts or bruises at all to indicate HE was attacked - and believe me, if he there were cuts and marks on him then it would be ALL over the news.

I believe GZ unlawfully pursued Trayvon, and should face some punishment. But to ask for 2nd degree murder, or, as the OP said on the first page of this thread, ask for the ELECTRIC CHAIR, is ridiculous.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly. So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault. It requires a THREAT.

But, here, there is no evidence of a threat. And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.

So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact? The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case. Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin. At this point it could theoretically have been Martin. On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman. How it will play in court is yet to be seen.


>>>>

Nice try at spin, WW, but you remain wrong.

A mere verbal confrontation will not suffice as an assault no matter how far you wish to stretch reality.

As I noted before, there must be a concomitant THREAT.

Physical contact may not be required in all cases, but more than mere words ARE required. AT the barest of minimums, the words have to include a threat which -- under those specific circumstances -- place the person in REASONABLE fear of IMMINENT great bodily harm or death.

Which is exactly what I've said in the hypothetical. The original statement was that there MUST be a physical attack.

That's not true.

If you think there's some evidence which has been disseminated to the public, so far, that shows that Trayvon Martin was confronted by ANY verbal threat from GZ at all, much LESS a threat which was then and there coupled with an apparent ability to fulfill the threat, much LESS one which would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent serious harm -- then I admit I haven't seen it or heard of it.

That being the case, if it is, then Martin would not have been legally privileged to lay even a finger on GZ.

Now we've moved from a hypothetical to what the state can prove in the Zimmerman case. Again, I've have repeatedly noted that, from the evidence that has been released to the public, it does not appear that the state has the evidence to make such a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the public evidence, then Zimmerman would be found not guilty - even of the lower standard required for Manslaughter. The state being able to prove the prerequisite mental condition and actions required for Murder 2 is even more unlikely.


>>>>