George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Quantum Windbag]

Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.

I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.
Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?

I have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.

While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?

Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.

If I'm in a vehicle, I have two things vital to self defense: protection and means of escape.

This "Stand your ground" law is flawed in that it gives any potential murderer a quick and easy out. Just say you felt threatened. Even if circumstances are legitimate and you are threatened, if you use deadly force you should make an account of it. When a policeman shoots a suspect, there is a coroner's inquiry. Killing someone and explaining it from your point of view is not a limit on freedom, it's purely judicial responsibility.

Just say you felt threatened? Seriously, does anyone actually read laws before they start blathering about what is wrong with them? All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that. Do you prefer that the state be able to pick people up at random, lock them up, and leave them there until it is convenient to take them to trial? If you do, move to Mexico.

 

[kiwiman127]

No horse in this race, but looking at the courtroom footage, Zimmerman stuck me a frail little guy with little girly hands.

I can see how that big 6'2" gangsta wanna-be punk would decide to kick his ass in a confrontation.

6'2" and weighing 160lbs isn't big at all. You're projecting with your pre-determined conclusion of the circumstances that you want to hear. But Martin did certainly have the "reach" advantage and in a fight that can be important. But then I've seen little guys kick bigger guys butts when I was a bouncer while going to college.

So again, we will find out more truth about the incident than you or I can take into account without knowing all the facts.

 

[koshergrl]

As I've said from the beginning..the cops and the prosecutors have the facts, and are best able to determine whether or not it needs to go to trial.

I think initially the cops wanted to go to trial, but then cops always do. Any body who has a son, brother or husband who has responded to an attack by kicking the ass of the attacker knows that in those cases, the cops look at the person who is on the ground as the *victim* regardless of how the incident went down. In this case, based on what the prosecutor herself has said, what the witnesses have released, what the police reports have said, and the crap affidavit, I don't think they have much of any kind of murder case. I'm not even sure they have manslaughter. I just don't see that they have any case at all.

But who knows....time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Conservative]

UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

Thus, in this criminal court, ONLY incident #2 will be used to determine guilt. Just like in a bar, if a guy calls your GF a slut, and walks away, then you pursue him.....and a fight ensues.....and you kill him..........they'll find you guilty, even if he was rude to you and your date.

YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY PROFILED YOU.

Thats the case in a nutshell.

Zimmerman probably deserved to get his nose busted too. I agree with that. He probably deserved a good ass kicking, as he was overzealous, and he was charged with assaulting a cop in the past (And I"m extremely pro-police). This guy has needed a good foot in the ass for a while, and Trayvon was giving it to him.

BUT....at some point, we all must show self control. Even when we punch the guy who calls our GF a slut.

And at some point, as men, we all have been in a good old fashioned fist fight. But at some point, we must realize when we cross the line into "Oh shit I could hurt/kill this guy".

And bouncing the back of his head off pavement is PAST THAT LINE.

At that point, the other guy has a right to not die during the fight and can use force. Zimmerman did just that.

This is an ugly, disgusting case.

But Zimmerman will be not guilty.

the number of unsubstantiated assumptions in that response boggles the mind.

 

[Bigfoot]

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

So, following someone who you think is suspicious, is a good enough reason to draw a gun on said person?

He had a gun, he thought the person was suspicious. What else are we supposed to think? I certainly would have it drawn in that situation. To do otherwise doesn't make sense.

LOL, then you are an idiot!

 

[bucs90]

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

Under Florida Law (See below), drawing a firearm (even without the intent to kill) can be construed as a threat rising to the level of Aggravated Assault. A felony. Under Florida Statute 776.041 Aggravated Assault negates the self defense claim.

Supporters for Zimmerman better hope there is no proof Zimmerman drew his weapon and used it to threaten Martin.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as​

784.021 - Aggravated assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

>>>>

Wrong. Drawing a firearm, with no intent to use it, would be a "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

"Aggravated" assault means: An assault HAS occurred. The "aggravated" is just a situation that amplifies the severity.

Otherwise, a cop would be "assaulting" a person every time they drew their firearms on traffic stops, thus enabling the driver to use deadly force to resist that traffic stop: Obviously not the case.

Had Zimmerman drawn the weapon...then pistol whipped Trayvon...that would be aggravated assault.

Flashing his gun to scare Trayvon? Not assault. That would be "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

Learn the law first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>

Every time you post you drop the intelligence of the entire planet by a percentage point.

Hearsay is not what you know, and is not always inadmissible. If this goes to trial, and she testifies, if she testifies that Martin told her he was being followed, that is hearsay. That does not make it inadmissible,m it just means a judge will have to rule about it.

 

[Conservative]

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

So, following someone who you think is suspicious, is a good enough reason to draw a gun on said person?

He had a gun, he thought the person was suspicious. What else are we supposed to think? I certainly would have it drawn in that situation. To do otherwise doesn't make sense.

walking around at night, following a 'suspicious person' with your gun drawn, is NOT a smart idea.

 

[Bigfoot]

Peach didn't say that.

I did.

Yeah, I was wondering...That sure didn't sound like Peach.

 

[bucs90]

No horse in this race, but looking at the courtroom footage, Zimmerman stuck me a frail little guy with little girly hands.

I can see how that big 6'2" gangsta wanna-be punk would decide to kick his ass in a confrontation.

6'2" and weighing 160lbs isn't big at all. You're projecting with your pre-determined conclusion of the circumstances that you want to hear. But Martin did certainly have the "reach" advantage and in a fight that can be important. But then I've seen little guys kick bigger guys butts when I was a bouncer while going to college.

So again, we will find out more truth about the incident than you or I can take into account without knowing all the facts.

The best fighter in the UFC is George St Pierre. 6'1, 170 lbs.

Another 20 pounds, Trayvon would be as big as some NFL football players.

 

[Moonglow]

GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com

This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!

Ever watch UFC fights? Notice two things about them:

- It is illegal to "rabbit punch", or, hit in the back of the head. Why? Because the chance of death from it is higher. It's a violent sport, but they dont want people to die.

- When a fighter is on his back, taking repeated punches to the face, with his skull bouncing off the PADDED MAT surface, the ref stops the fight. The fight is over. Why? Death or injury would occur if it kept going.

Now...imagine instead of a trained pro fighter on a padded mat, you have an untrained citizen with his head laying on concrete, taking shots to the head. Would a UFC ref stop that fight? Instantly. Why? The guy could die....just like they stop them in UFC on a padded floor.

But there was no ref at Zimmerman vs Martin. And Martin may have kept punching until....who knows when. Does Zimmerman then have a right to do whatever is necessary to stop his skull from bouncing off that pavement? Yes.

This is a no-brainer case. Zman confronts choir boy Trayvon. Wrong? Immoral? Profiling? Sure. Maybe. Zman walks back to car. 1st encounter ends. THEN.....Travyon, his ego and pride hurt, attacks Zman. Begin 2nd encounter. The trial is about the 2nd encounter. Not the first. The ONLY crimes, texbook crimes, occurred in the 2nd incident. The "profiling" incident was not a crime. Immoral maybe. Not criminal. That incident does NOT give Trayvon a right to assault anyone. But he did. THAT assault, and Zman's defense, are the case.

Pure medical proof that the head, being pounded on a concrete surface, IS DEADLY, will break this trial. Thats why the UFC stops fights on a PADDED surface when this happens. But this was concrete, with no refs, no sportsmanship, and an absolute threat of seriously bodily injury or death to Zimmerman.

To sum it up....if a cop was on the ground, with a guy on top of him pounding his head into the concrete, would or COULD that cop be justified in shooting the guy? YES. Without doubt. ANd cops are held to a HIGHER standard than Zman will be.

NOT GUILTY verdict will rock the left and the race baiting will be epic.

Riots will erupt afterwards. Obama will cherish in the race baiting.

Ur dreaming again, try not to cream ur jeans.

 

[saveliberty]

Just say you felt threatened? Seriously, does anyone actually read laws before they start blathering about what is wrong with them? All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that. Do you prefer that the state be able to pick people up at random, lock them up, and leave them there until it is convenient to take them to trial? If you do, move to Mexico.

It muddies the waters to the point local law enforcement is uneasy about even charging someone apparently. As in cases where one participant dies as a result, it makes it even tougher. Its a bad law.

 

[kiwiman127]

Wow, this place is loaded with Perry Masons!

 

[Liability]

I've never heard anything but blogoshpere and tabloid reports of a "broken" nose. A bloody nose is in the responding officers report.
Columbo, noses have been known to bleed without being broken.
The photo's of the back of the bloody head have now made broadcast media. So either they have been vetted or the media is completely irresponsible (wouldn't be the first time.)
If the bloody head photo is real, the murder charge needs to be dropped.

You are absolutely right about the "broken nose."

It may have been the subject of LATER spin, but the police report did describe it as "bloody." WESH PDF Viewer

I wonder if there's a photo of that, too, out there somewhere?

 

[J.E.D]

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so[/B].

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

Thus, in this criminal court, ONLY incident #2 will be used to determine guilt. Just like in a bar, if a guy calls your GF a slut, and walks away, then you pursue him.....and a fight ensues.....and you kill him..........they'll find you guilty, even if he was rude to you and your date.

YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY PROFILED YOU.

Thats the case in a nutshell.

I believe the point Conservative is trying to make is that you don't have all of the facts of the case; therefore, you cannot say who instigated what. Conjecture is not proof.

 

[Bigfoot]

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

Under Florida Law (See below), drawing a firearm (even without the intent to kill) can be construed as a threat rising to the level of Aggravated Assault. A felony. Under Florida Statute 776.041 Aggravated Assault negates the self defense claim.

Supporters for Zimmerman better hope there is no proof Zimmerman drew his weapon and used it to threaten Martin.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as​

784.021 - Aggravated assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

>>>>

Wrong. Drawing a firearm, with no intent to use it, would be a "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

"Aggravated" assault means: An assault HAS occurred. The "aggravated" is just a situation that amplifies the severity.

Otherwise, a cop would be "assaulting" a person every time they drew their firearms on traffic stops, thus enabling the driver to use deadly force to resist that traffic stop: Obviously not the case.

Had Zimmerman drawn the weapon...then pistol whipped Trayvon...that would be aggravated assault.

Flashing his gun to scare Trayvon? Not assault. That would be "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

Learn the law first.

Yeah, they call that "Menacing", it's a crime. Some of these guys who know nothing about firearms and the law are pure dumb.

 

[Conservative]

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

Thus, in this criminal court, ONLY incident #2 will be used to determine guilt. Just like in a bar, if a guy calls your GF a slut, and walks away, then you pursue him.....and a fight ensues.....and you kill him..........they'll find you guilty, even if he was rude to you and your date.

YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY PROFILED YOU.

Thats the case in a nutshell.

I believe the point Conservative is trying to make is that you don't have all of the facts of the case; therefore, you cannot say who instigated what. Conjecture is not proof.

How dare you put me in a position that I have to thank you!

 

[Moonglow]

Comment of the day.

These idiot liberals, like you said, just dont get that. Most of them have never been in a fist fight in their lives anyway. And they wont listen to my UFC example, all though that is the perfect display of medical sense in a fist fight to use. UFC guys get knocked OUT cold all the time, with their heads bashing off the mat. No marks. See them after the fight, after being knocked OUT, and they could take a wedding picture. No cuts. No bruises. These idiot libs dont understand the anatomy of a knockout shot to the head.

But every month, the UFC shows how a man can be knocked out...without marks. And they show why it is DEADLY to allow a brain to be bounced off a padded canvas....much less concrete...which is why they stop the fights then.

Zman had no ref. And Trayvon wasn't fighting a sport.

Not guilty.

I've been in alot of fights, I enjoy them, and I have worked as a part time bouncer for 30 years and still bouncing. Now again tell us how liberals are cowards again. care to meet in person and back up your statement?

 

[WorldWatcher]

UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

You forgot...

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Traycon tries to leave like he did at the truck. Zimmerman grabs Martin to prevent Martin's departure committing assault, battery, and unlawful detention which are felonies.

#3 Since Zimmerman is committing (theoretically) a felony against Martin, Martin under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law has no requirement to retreat and can defend himself. Martin gains the upper hand, Zimmerman realizes the fight he started he is now losing, pulls his weapon and fires.



Under #3 Zimmerman would be guilty of a crime, but the state would have a burden of proof to show that Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony.



>>>>

 

[Dick Tuck]

The fact is still the fact. Martin committed no crime. He was followed, stalked, and murdered by some armed nut with a record of violence.

Given the excuses, I have to think most of you are happy that another ****** bit the dust. I hold you contemptible.