George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Quantum Windbag]

NO, She (the witness) clearly says that the larger man was on top, the shot was fired, then the larger man (the same one that was on tip) rose and walked into better light.

I think we can all agree that the one that did not rise was Martin.


>>>>

You, quite obviously, did not listen to the interview.

Quite obviously I did. She said the larger man was on top. She said the boy was on the bottom. She said she was watching during the time the gunshot was heard. She said the larger man rose and walked into better light. We now know the larger man was Zimmerman because it is unlikely that Martin got up off the ground.


>>>>

The exact quote is "I know it was very dark, but I have to say that I think it was the larger person that was on top."

That is nothing like what you said.

 

[KissMy]

Just because I like to argue.

Suppose the prosecutor can find evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him some harm, not kill him but intimidate him with threatening words or actions, such as flashing his gun - such actions could rise to the level of a felony - then regardless of the circumstances at the moment the shot was fired, Zimmerman would have killed Martin in the course of committing a felony and be guilty of murder.

Florida Statutes 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

- (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Yes, but if Zimmerman's actions constituted a felony, it's a whole new ballgame. If you kill some one in the course of committing a felony, even accidentally, you've committed murder.

unless:

- (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.

Suspicious Activities Include:

- A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.

- A person looking into a neighbor's windows and/or parked cars, moving from door to door.

How to Report Suspicious Activity:

- Immediately report any/all suspicious persons, vehicles, and activity to the Sheriff's Office non emergency dispatch.

- Be specific when describing any suspects (race, sex, age, height, weight, eye/hair color, facial hair, tattoos and articles of clothing worn.)

 

[rdean]

Class!!!..... Class!!!..... Pay attention now Class!!!!!.......

Trails of blood going in two directions not affected by gravity? Seen better on Halloween.

centrifugal force--don't you know shit about science?

You mean his head was spinning? Wanna see that.



And it wasn't even smeared. Amazing.

 

[KissMy]

You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?

Fact: Zimmerman is on tape saying he was following the kid, and its on tape he was told to stop.

Is being followed by someone who is not a Police Officer not a threat? And what crime did this kid commit that gave Zimmerman reason to follow him? You guys keep mentioning Zimmermans right to defend himself, but what about the kid? If someone was following me for no apparent reason, I would see that as a threat, and that I was in imminent danger.

Your GZ hater bias has been exposed.

Zimmerman following Martin is enough to make Martin fear for his life.

BUT

Martin punching Zimmerman breaking his nose knocking him to the ground, pounding his head on the ground is not enough for Zimmerman to fear for his life.

BIAS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rdean]

Florida Statutes 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

- (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Yes, but if Zimmerman's actions constituted a felony, it's a whole new ballgame. If you kill some one in the course of committing a felony, even accidentally, you've committed murder.

Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.

Suspicious Activities Include:

- A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.

- A person looking into a neighbor's windows and/or parked cars, moving from door to door.

How to Report Suspicious Activity:

- Immediately report any/all suspicious persons, vehicles, and activity to the Sheriff's Office non emergency dispatch.

- Be specific when describing any suspects (race, sex, age, height, weight, eye/hair color, facial hair, tattoos and articles of clothing worn.)

They can't even say this:

A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.

The kid walked to the store before the game. He had a purpose. Worse, Zimmerman had to chase him down before he could shoot him. We know this from the tapes.

 

[Ariux]

If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.

Disbanding neighborhood watch programs would make the African-American community very happy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, he shouldn't have followed the kid after he was told not to..
Of course your morons can't figure out the kid was probably attacked, and fought back... Because you know, you just want to except the fact it was the black kids fault. You know the one who was followed by someone twice his size, and after he did nothing wrong.

Lol! This is the dumbest post I've seen.

I see you are a great addition to this thread.


So tell me smart one.......What did this kid do to warrant being followed?

Be so kind as to cite the law that permits someone to physically assault someone for "following" you. Be so kind as to cite the law that allows you to physically assault someone for asking you a question.

In order to STALK someone it requires more then a single 10 minute episode. But then the law and you are not good friends are you?

And be so kind as to link for me the supposed claim that Zimmerman was on top. That someone saw Zimmerman strike the kid. I have the 911 call and the husband of the caller stating that Zimmerman was on the bottom and that the yells fro help came from Zimmerman.

I have Zimmerman agreeing to stop following the kid on his call. I have the girlfriend of Martin admitting all Zimmerman did is ask a simple question. I have the autopsy which shows no signs of a physical nature on Martin's body. I have the testimony of the Mortuary mortician stating there were NO SIGNS of a physical struggle on Martin.

I have the testimony of the cops on the scene and the EMTs as well as now 2 pictures of Zimmerman bloody and wounded. I have the testimony of his neighbors that the next day his nose was bandaged and swollen and the back of his head was damaged.

Every shred of verifiable evidence SUPPORTS Zimmerman's statements.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nor was she cross examined as to how convinced she was who was the larger man in the darkness.

True, we'll have to see how it plays out in court.



That's for the jury to decide.

At this point she is as valid a witness as any of the other neighbors.

She also saw them lying on the ground---good luck picking the larger man. Even what they were wearing could throw all perceptions of size off.

Are you confusing "larger" with "taller"? Those are two different things.

When two people are on the ground it's pretty difficult to determine the "taller". On the other hand determining that one is "skinny" and one "stocky" and assigning the mental tag of "larger" to the stocky person pretty easy.

The fact remains that the "larger man" was the one on top when the gun was discharged and that is the person that got up from the struggle.



>>>>

Wrong--the person who appeared larger was the person who appeared to walk away from the struggle.

Yes --larger and taller are two different things and consdering how close in size they really were and it was dark with them lying on the ground I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for her testimony. No wonder the didn't call her back.

Bolded Part: Which is exactly what I said. The witness says the larger person walked away and the larger person was on top.


Who walked away from the shooting Zimmerman or Martin?


>>>>

 

[dilloduck]

True, we'll have to see how it plays out in court.



That's for the jury to decide.

At this point she is as valid a witness as any of the other neighbors.




Are you confusing "larger" with "taller"? Those are two different things.

When two people are on the ground it's pretty difficult to determine the "taller". On the other hand determining that one is "skinny" and one "stocky" and assigning the mental tag of "larger" to the stocky person pretty easy.

The fact remains that the "larger man" was the one on top when the gun was discharged and that is the person that got up from the struggle.



>>>>

Wrong--the person who appeared larger was the person who appeared to walk away from the struggle.

Yes --larger and taller are two different things and consdering how close in size they really were and it was dark with them lying on the ground I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for her testimony. No wonder the didn't call her back.

Bolded Part: Which is exactly what I said. The witness says the larger person walked away and the larger person was on top.


Who walked away from the shooting Zimmerman or Martin?


>>>>

Appeared

is the key word---if I appear to be something it doesn't mean that i am.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't say Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself, what is true is that under Florida Law (Statute 776.041) **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and was found to be in the commission of a forcible felony, then Zimmerman would not qualify under the Self Defense statutes from immunity from prosecution and a determination of justifiable homicide. A subtle but important distinction.

Probably too subtle for some. The statute you are trying to use to defend your argument would only apply if Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to feel from the site of a felony, and Martin was trying to stop him.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this situation, but thanks for letting me know that I am not talking to an actual lawyer.

This case will be argued under Florida law, not Wisconsin law and I've noted the applicable statutes under Florida Law (776.041) which specifically notes that self defense IS NOT a defense when certain conditions apply and I noted them.

No you didn't, you just think you did.

I didn't say that the State didn't have a burden of proof to show the conditions existed which nullifies the affirmative defense of - well - self defense.

I was simply pointing out that under Florida law there are certain conditions were if you are identified as the aggressor and the hostilities escalate to the point where you - as the aggressor - fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, that you are not exempt from prosecution under the guise of "Self Defense" if someone uses force in return because you have created a situation where the non-aggressor fears death or great bodily harm.


Sorry, that's Florida Law.

>>>>

It might be Florida law, but it doesn't apply here, and doesn't help the state at all. If the law you are trying to apply here actually applied Zimmerman would be facing the death penalty and multiple charges.

He isn't.

That, sir, is Florida law.

**IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.

Under Florida Law (776.08), that becomes a forcible felony and Zimmerman would no longer qualify for an affirmative defense of self defense under Florida Law 776.041.

That is the Florida Law.

[DISCLAIMER: With the evidence released to the public, it appears that would be difficult to prove. But that does not change the law.]


>>>>

 

[KissMy]

Bolded Part: Which is exactly what I said. The witness says the larger person walked away and the larger person was on top.


Who walked away from the shooting Zimmerman or Martin?

That wacko witness you are quoting will be laughed out of court. You are seriously grasping at straws if have to resort to her ramblings.

 

[KissMy]

**IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.

Florida Statutes 776.041 - unless:

- (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

[Liability]

Lots of folks here persist in asking the wrong questions.

WHERE is THIS particular evidence?

Where is THAT particular evidence?

Calm down. The STATE has the duty, the full-fledged OBLIGATION, to produce the evidence -- in the right forum and at the right time.

This Board and the media are not such forums. This is also not the time. WE all may have a right to know and a pronounced interest, too. But Zimmerman is the one who has the actual RIGHT to receive the information FROM the State.

I think that is what people here are anticipating, what the state will bring, what they will ask, do, say. Everyone here knows what is said in this forum doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

It's just discussion. The complaints about trying Zimmerman in the media are lame. We want to know what's going on. We all have an opinion.

Maybe YOU and I just want to know. But I see shitloads of folks declaring Zimmerman guilty already (and it started almost from jump street). Alternatively, some folks have already "decided" that Trayvon brought it all on himself and that Zimmerman
is" completely innocent.

Such preconceived notions this early on, while we are at a point where we lack crucial, basic, necessary information, is not the same as "just discussing it."

 

[Liability]

Why would he call him a punk and say they always get away when he didn't know anything about Travon. He was profiling him. He actually said these punks (or whatever) always get away.

What was Travon getting away with? He was just walking down the street.

That's why Zimmerman kept following him and finally stopped him, imo. He didn't want that punk getting away.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he didn't have to. In fact, at the bond hearing the state investigator admitted there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim that he turned back towards his car after talking to the dispatcher.

As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

To claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28. The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration). The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds. From the truck's likely location (based on Zimmerman's description of the location in the dispatcher tape) the truck was likely about 150 yards away from the shooting site. **IF** he began returning at the "OK" acknowledgment he'd have had 833.3% more time to return (2:30) then the 18 seconds traveling away.


>>>>

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

 

[Salt Jones]

Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.

 

[rdean]

No, a real live witness.

Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube

About 5:30 on the video.

Does he have a face?

Yes.

A name?

Yes.

Is he a he?

Don't think so, my impression was that he was a she.


>>>>

Republicans will say the testimony doesn't count because it's a woman.

Rush will call her a slut.

 

[rdean]

There is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he didn't have to. In fact, at the bond hearing the state investigator admitted there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim that he turned back towards his car after talking to the dispatcher.

As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

To claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28. The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration). The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds. From the truck's likely location (based on Zimmerman's description of the location in the dispatcher tape) the truck was likely about 150 yards away from the shooting site. **IF** he began returning at the "OK" acknowledgment he'd have had 833.3% more time to return (2:30) then the 18 seconds traveling away.


>>>>

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Follow? Or "chase"? Was there an instruction to chase?

 

[Liability]

As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

To claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28. The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration). The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds. From the truck's likely location (based on Zimmerman's description of the location in the dispatcher tape) the truck was likely about 150 yards away from the shooting site. **IF** he began returning at the "OK" acknowledgment he'd have had 833.3% more time to return (2:30) then the 18 seconds traveling away.


>>>>

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Follow? Or "chase"? Was there an instruction to chase?

There was no "instruction" at all, you dipshit.

Following need not be "instructed." It is lawful, you asshole.

There is no evidence of any "chase," you punk ass dope.

 

[Liability]

Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.

You up to being a murder, bitch?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't say Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself, what is true is that under Florida Law (Statute 776.041) **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and was found to be in the commission of a forcible felony, then Zimmerman would not qualify under the Self Defense statutes from immunity from prosecution and a determination of justifiable homicide. A subtle but important distinction.

Probably too subtle for some. The statute you are trying to use to defend your argument would only apply if Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to feel from the site of a felony, and Martin was trying to stop him.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this situation, but thanks for letting me know that I am not talking to an actual lawyer.



No you didn't, you just think you did.

I didn't say that the State didn't have a burden of proof to show the conditions existed which nullifies the affirmative defense of - well - self defense.

I was simply pointing out that under Florida law there are certain conditions were if you are identified as the aggressor and the hostilities escalate to the point where you - as the aggressor - fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, that you are not exempt from prosecution under the guise of "Self Defense" if someone uses force in return because you have created a situation where the non-aggressor fears death or great bodily harm.


Sorry, that's Florida Law.

>>>>

It might be Florida law, but it doesn't apply here, and doesn't help the state at all. If the law you are trying to apply here actually applied Zimmerman would be facing the death penalty and multiple charges.

He isn't.

That, sir, is Florida law.

**IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.

Under Florida Law (776.08), that becomes a forcible felony and Zimmerman would no longer qualify for an affirmative defense of self defense under Florida Law 776.041.

That is the Florida Law.

[DISCLAIMER: With the evidence released to the public, it appears that would be difficult to prove. But that does not change the law.]


>>>>

You really are one of the stupid ones aren't you?

Here is the law you are trying to site as proof that Zimmerman is wrong.

Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Funny thing, the second part, which I emphasized, is exactly what I have been saying, it doesn't fracking matter if Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was reacting with more force than was reasonable.

Thanks for making my point in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than me.