George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Cecilie1200]

like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...

Indeed----he should have waited until he at least had a skull fracture.

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 accept 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.

Why is it that everything we say on the subject ends up having evidence to support it, and everything you say on the subject is all stuff you "figured out", ie. speculation?

Please show us some sort of evidence that he "followed the kid after he was told not to" (contradicted by the 911 call), that "the kid was probably attacked" (contradicted by the fact that Martin didn't have a mark on him OTHER than the gunshot wound), that this had anything to do with Martin's race (contradicted by the fact that not one of you has provided a shred of evidence stating otherwise, and have instead falsified evidence to try to prove it), or that Zimmerman was "twice his size" (contradicted by just looking at the two of them).

By all means, source ANY of the bullshit you've decided to believe about this case, and keep presenting to us as accepted "facts". For that matter, prove that you can define the word "fact", because quite frankly, your posts lead me to believe you can't.

 

[Liability]

Actually, it's you who doesn't understand. The legal statute for hearsay, is if the girlfriend's buddy had been the one to tell about what the girlfriend said she heard him say. In other words, if Trayvon's words were relayed by a third party.

oracle you are wrong.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered (in a court proceeding) for the proof of the matter asserted. There are some scenarios where what seems like hearsay is legally NOT hearsay at all. There are other scenarios where something IS hearsay but is allowed to be received into evidence just the same based on a legally recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. It is also true that sometimes one's own words (uttered out of court) are hearsay and can't be used in court.

In this case, we are not really talking about any "hearsay" at this juncture.

Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

• 90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
• 90.802 Hearsay rule.
• 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
• 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.

My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:

1. Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4. Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not? If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury? (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What evidence do you have that he followed Martin after the dispatcher informed him that they did not need him to do so? In fact, what evidence do you have that he was told not to follow anyone?

Zimmerman flat says he lost martin. Lost him. You cant follow someone you lost. After that the whole conversation was about zimmerman meeting the cops at the mail boxes.

Shame on you for actually paying attention to the evidence, instead of "figuring out what probably happened" based on your own prejudices and wild-assed speculation. Luissa doesn't accept that sort of shoddy, logic-based decision-making, I'll have you know.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

RETARD ALERT. Zimmerman DID stop following when advised to do so. There is absolutely zero evidence Zimmerman laid a hand on the kid. AT least according to the autopsy and the Mortuary witness. We do have eye witnesses that place Zimmerman on the bottom having his head pounded calling for help. We have the girlfriend corroborating that all Zimmerman did is ask a question.

You idiots amaze me.

If that is true why was he there? If he stopped following him he wouldn't have been there to get beat up. And they have witnesses that contradict that he was on the ground being pounded by someone half his size.
And if he had his head pounded on the pavement it would look a little worse. I have seen people who have received two stitches on the back of their head that looked worse than that picture.

And tell me Retard, why was he following him in the first place? What crime did he commit that warranted him being followed by a normal citizen?

He was a stranger in a neighborhood that had a high crime rate and a neighborhood watch group. Walking through the neighborhood at night, acting strangely "like he was on drugs or something".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

oracle you are wrong.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered (in a court proceeding) for the proof of the matter asserted. There are some scenarios where what seems like hearsay is legally NOT hearsay at all. There are other scenarios where something IS hearsay but is allowed to be received into evidence just the same based on a legally recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. It is also true that sometimes one's own words (uttered out of court) are hearsay and can't be used in court.

In this case, we are not really talking about any "hearsay" at this juncture.

Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

• 90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
• 90.802 Hearsay rule.
• 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
• 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.

My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:

1. Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4. Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not? If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury? (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

Some hearsay evidence is permissible, some isn't. Ultimately, it comes down to how the judge feels about it at the moment. Under the circumstances, the girlfriend will probably be able to testify about the phone call and what she heard, because that is direct knowledge. my guess is she will also be able to testify about what Martin told her was happening, even though it is hearsay, because they will be able to justify it under the excited utterance exception. Additionally, hearsay evidence is generally allowed in a case where the person who made the statement is unavailable.

 

[toomuchtime_]

oracle you are wrong.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered (in a court proceeding) for the proof of the matter asserted. There are some scenarios where what seems like hearsay is legally NOT hearsay at all. There are other scenarios where something IS hearsay but is allowed to be received into evidence just the same based on a legally recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. It is also true that sometimes one's own words (uttered out of court) are hearsay and can't be used in court.

In this case, we are not really talking about any "hearsay" at this juncture.

Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

• 90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
• 90.802 Hearsay rule.
• 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
• 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.

My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:

1. Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4. Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not? If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury? (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

It's important to distinguish between what was said on the phone and what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took. If called, she can testify to what was said on the phone because she has first hand knowledge about the conversation, but she cannot testify about what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took because she has no first hand knowledge about what they actually did.

 

[Liability]

Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

• 90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
• 90.802 Hearsay rule.
• 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
• 90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.

My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:

1. Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3. The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4. Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not? If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury? (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

It's important to distinguish between what was said on the phone and what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took. If called, she can testify to what was said on the phone because she has first hand knowledge about the conversation, but she cannot testify about what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took because she has no first hand knowledge about what they actually did.

Unless he had a camera phone and was sending her the images.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to. So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference. If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call.

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance." It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously. The later seems unlikely.

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time. For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM. Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?

It's important to distinguish between what was said on the phone and what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took. If called, she can testify to what was said on the phone because she has first hand knowledge about the conversation, but she cannot testify about what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took because she has no first hand knowledge about what they actually did.

Unless he had a camera phone and was sending her the images.

Images of what?

 

[tinydancer]

Has anyone on this board ever been a member of Neighborhood Watch?

I have. Mid 80's huge high rise Toronto suburb. Nightmare from hell. You don't go out gunslinging. You are actually quite fearful for most of your members.

I breathe cock locked and ready to rock, but then I'm a hunter. Most people who join NW groups are like Zimmerman. Nice people, never thinking once in their lives that some one is going to be "mean".

 

[Liability]

It's important to distinguish between what was said on the phone and what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took. If called, she can testify to what was said on the phone because she has first hand knowledge about the conversation, but she cannot testify about what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took because she has no first hand knowledge about what they actually did.

Unless he had a camera phone and was sending her the images.

Images of what?

Who knows?

Whatever it is that's deemed worthy of description from the witness. Maybe he had an image of Zimmerman pointing the gun at him from a distance. And if he did have such an image on his phone, and happened to have sent it to his girlfriend, I have no doubt the prosecutor could make a pretty compelling argument as to its admissibility.

If the prosecution could get that into evidence, game over. Zimmerman would go down like a cheap whore.

It hardly matters. This is entirely hypothetical "what if" nonsense at this point.

Like the old SNL skit: "What if Kal El had landed in Nazi Germany instead of in Smallville?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, never made such speculation that Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight. What I have done is simply cite Florida Law that says that his self defense claim could be negated **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony, which is in fact true.

So you are debating a strawman that I have no claimed.

If, in fact, you never claimed that, then you are repeating yourself by saying it is a strawman, and then asserting that you never said it.

Except the fact is that I have pointed out in this thread and in multiple threads on this board **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony then he would not qualify under Florida Law 776.041 for self defense immunity. AND that the state would have to supply evidence to prove it or that Zimmerman should be found not quilty for lack of evidence.

Repeated numerous times. And for those that have paid attention I'm very careful to qualify the description of such a scenario as unknown and one the state would have to prove.

Thank you for contradicting yourself with "Self defense always applies, even under Florida law. The statutory exceptions...". If there are statutory exceptions to the use of Self Defense as an affirmative defense, then Self Defense does not always apply. If there are exceptions, then self defense does not always apply.

The law is very clear (776.041) there are certain conditions under Florida Law where the aggressor cannot claim self defense. You use an example of someone breaking into your home and you fear for your life, self defense is warranted. I agree.

On the other hand if you are female and walking home from the local library at night and someone drags you into an alley and begins aggravated assault and battery upon your person. You fear for your life and fight back, you begin winning and the assailant pulls a gun and shoots you. In that case the individual is committing a forcible felony and the claim of "self defense" by the initial aggressor would be negated.

I have not claimed as truth (unlike some others) of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, I'm simply discussing the law as it pertains to multiple scenarios that current comply with the evidence that is available. As more facts come out in the future some scenarios my be modified or eliminated, we'll just have to wait and see.


>>>>

I did not contradict myself at any point because I said that, even if Zimmerman started the fight, he can still argue self defense if he was on the ground getting beaten. You then tried to argue that it is not true under Florida law if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then posted a link to a law that talks about people not being able to claim self defense if they are committing a felony. You then insisted that the first part of the law, which specifically mentions the felony, proves that Zimmerman could be convicted of murder. I then proceeded to mock your understanding of the law.

You do understand what a "forcible felony" is right?

Forcibile Felony includes such things as aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping and unlawful detention, rape, murder, etc.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing simple assault he would still be able to claim self defense as simple assault is a misdemeanor. On the other hand if Zimmerman was committing assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, then that is a forcible felony.

I never said that Zimmerman couldn't claim self defense simply on the basis of (possibly) being the aggressor, however Zimmerman would loose his self defense immunity **IF** the state were to prove he was committing a forcible felony.

All true under Florida Statute 776.041.

when you insisted on doubling down, and then tried to throw in a strawman, and beat the crap out of it, I took the same strawman you used, and proceeded to mock you further with it. In none of that did I contradict anything, other than your argument.

Actually, your mocking you look bad since I've tried to maintain high standards of conduct.

**IF** the state tries to negate self defense, they will have to rely on the provisions of 776.041 and ONE of the two possible disqualifying factors is if the person is committing a forcible felony.

[DISCLAIMER: Not saying Zimmerman did commit one as no evidence has come out to support that possible scenario and lacking evidence the state would have a hard time making it stick.)


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

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.


>>>>

 

[freedombecki]

Yeah, but this is a picture from an anonymous person that shared it with the media instead of the police! If Martin was banging Zimmerman's head on concrete he sure wasn't trying very hard if that is real evidence.

I see one cut, some blood, that is it.

What about the soft tissue trauma that probably caused contusions below the epidermis?

We don't see that either but if Z'man's story is true, he had contusions as well as the bleeding open wounds.

I see blood oozing along lines--which could have been the curb his head was slammed into, just like he said.

No wonder the policemen let him go: his wounds were most consistent with his story.

But racists don't want his story to be true, and seems to me they bought the judge. I smell a Jessie Jackson racially-charged quid quo pro.

 

[Liability]

IF is sometimes a huge word.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And how about we look at the facts......

Do we have evidence of Martin getting violent with anyone in the past? What of his criminal record? You guys bitch at liberals for being quick to judge Zimmerman, but lets remember there is witnesses on both sides that are saying the other person started it. There is a man who says Zimmerman was on the ground, and there is witnesses who say Martin was the one being attacked.
Show me where there is a witness who saw Martin first attack Zimmerman, not just see him on top or that Martin ran after Zimmerman.
Zimmerman has been charged before in cases involving assault, Martin has no juvenile record and was only suspended for trace amounts of pot. Is there any records of Martin fighting at school?

There are witnesses that said Martin was being attacked who actually saw the attack? where have they been hiding? Why didn't the prosecution mention them in the affidavit? Will they actually show up for the trial, or will they still be invisible?

Of course they'll still be invisible. That's because they'll still be figments of Luissa's imagination.

 

[tinydancer]

This is such a sad story. One more time, just like Jena, you have the douche bag pricks of racism Sharpton and Jackson rocking into a story.

My heart breaks for Trayvon's parents. My heart breaks for Zimmerman's parents. Skittles at the wrong freaking time.

BUT I hate the race baiters. I hate what everyone else has done around a non case. I hate everyone trying to make money off this. I hate the New Black Panthers trying to get profile off this.

This is sad. This is just so sad. And two young mens lives are ruined. One is dead. One will be notorious forever.

This is a pity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that part about TM having his hands on Z's mouth and nose, both hands.

Yet Z was screaming for help.

Hmm.

Maybe he screamed before Martin put his hands over his mouth and nose. Hey, maybe the screaming is WHY Martin covered his mouth and nose.

Unless you have trouble with the concept of things happening at different times.

 

[tinydancer]

And how about we look at the facts......

Do we have evidence of Martin getting violent with anyone in the past? What of his criminal record? You guys bitch at liberals for being quick to judge Zimmerman, but lets remember there is witnesses on both sides that are saying the other person started it. There is a man who says Zimmerman was on the ground, and there is witnesses who say Martin was the one being attacked.
Show me where there is a witness who saw Martin first attack Zimmerman, not just see him on top or that Martin ran after Zimmerman.
Zimmerman has been charged before in cases involving assault, Martin has no juvenile record and was only suspended for trace amounts of pot. Is there any records of Martin fighting at school?

There are witnesses that said Martin was being attacked who actually saw the attack? where have they been hiding? Why didn't the prosecution mention them in the affidavit? Will they actually show up for the trial, or will they still be invisible?

Of course they'll still be invisible. That's because they'll still be figments of Luissa's imagination.

FYI

I got this story within seconds of it happening. Your press knew they had a "biggie" and they were going to run with it no matter the truth.

Now I have put up the photos that ABC "cough *discovered* just fucking now.

Trust me everyone is now running for mother fucking cover on this. Dershowitz is hitting it hard.

THAT'S why everyone is running for cover. Everyone is shitting their pants. Hold the fucking depends.

Alan isn't kidding.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I said started it. And do you have a witness that says they saw who first started it?
Trayvon Martin killing: witness says he saw Zimmerman walk away uninjured | World news | guardian.co.uk

The only person who seems to say he attacked him first is the person who is facing murder charges. Show me a witness who saw Martin attack him at his truck. If Zimmerman's head was slammed into the pavement don't you think his head injury would have been more severe? You guys are quick to defend someone with not a very clean past, but have no problem with assuming a black kid started it who has no criminal history.

The charging affidavit says, and I quote, "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

So, again, I ask, why doesn't the prosecution mention the witnesses that say Zimmerman started it? Why don't they even hint that such witnesses exist? Why do you know more about the case than the state attorney or the lead investigator on the case?

What are you even talking about? You are kind of an idiot.

And it says right there in your affidavit that Zimmerman confronted Martin, where does it say Martin first attacked Zimmerman? Or that there is a witness backing up Zimmerman's claim?

Like Paperview said, his head wounds don't look like someone who had his head hit on pavement. And if they were scuffling on pavement, where is the evidence? Wouldn't he have more then small wounds on the back of his head? Wouldn't he have at least a little road rash on other parts of his body?
And if his head wound was so bad, which it would most likely be from getting it repeatedly hit on the pavement wouldn't the paramedics take him to the hospital? Speaking of, did he ever go to the hospital? I thought he had a broken nose. I know when I broke my nose and had a head injury I had to spend all day at the ER.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the charging affidavit under criticism for fudging the facts?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Probably for the same reason why many in this thread are quick to judge Martin, and believe what Zimmerman said happened. How many young black males you know that trust the cops? He calls the Cops, ten bucks even if he wasn't doing anything wrong, who do you think they are going to bother?

It is not being a bleeding heart liberal if you realize that black males are the most stereo typed, wrongfully accused group in America.

Which if fine if you think the cops there were racist and that is why he didn't call. But if you want to confront someone, you have to know you are putting your life at risk. That is something I wouldn't do in the rain at night by myself.

For whatever reason he might have had, (I have a different one, but not important) I think imo he should have called the cops.

If he would have called the cops, most likely I wouldn't be typing this.

I don't believe he confronted Zimmerman, and if he did I don't think he attacked him first.

Are you basing that belief on one of your famous "feelings", or just on the fact that Martin was black?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope, never made such speculation that Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight. What I have done is simply cite Florida Law that says that his self defense claim could be negated **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony, which is in fact true.

So you are debating a strawman that I have no claimed.

If, in fact, you never claimed that, then you are repeating yourself by saying it is a strawman, and then asserting that you never said it.

Except the fact is that I have pointed out in this thread and in multiple threads on this board **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony then he would not qualify under Florida Law 776.041 for self defense immunity. AND that the state would have to supply evidence to prove it or that Zimmerman should be found not quilty for lack of evidence.

Repeated numerous times. And for those that have paid attention I'm very careful to qualify the description of such a scenario as unknown and one the state would have to prove.

I did not contradict myself at any point because I said that, even if Zimmerman started the fight, he can still argue self defense if he was on the ground getting beaten. You then tried to argue that it is not true under Florida law if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then posted a link to a law that talks about people not being able to claim self defense if they are committing a felony. You then insisted that the first part of the law, which specifically mentions the felony, proves that Zimmerman could be convicted of murder. I then proceeded to mock your understanding of the law.

You do understand what a "forcible felony" is right?

Forcibile Felony includes such things as aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping and unlawful detention, rape, murder, etc.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing simple assault he would still be able to claim self defense as simple assault is a misdemeanor. On the other hand if Zimmerman was committing assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, then that is a forcible felony.

I never said that Zimmerman couldn't claim self defense simply on the basis of (possibly) being the aggressor, however Zimmerman would loose his self defense immunity **IF** the state were to prove he was committing a forcible felony.

All true under Florida Statute 776.041.

when you insisted on doubling down, and then tried to throw in a strawman, and beat the crap out of it, I took the same strawman you used, and proceeded to mock you further with it. In none of that did I contradict anything, other than your argument.

Actually, your mocking you look bad since I've tried to maintain high standards of conduct.

**IF** the state tries to negate self defense, they will have to rely on the provisions of 776.041 and ONE of the two possible disqualifying factors is if the person is committing a forcible felony.

[DISCLAIMER: Not saying Zimmerman did commit one as no evidence has come out to support that possible scenario and lacking evidence the state would have a hard time making it stick.)


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

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.


>>>>

Except for the fact that, again, you have the law wrong.

The only fracking way they could allege Zimmerman was involved in a felony at the time of the assault is if they charge him with it now, not later. No one is charging him anything that is not a direct result of the assault, therefore the law you dancing with is irrelevant.

As I said, you really are one of the dumb ones.