George Zimmerman's bloody head

[J.E.D]

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!

Don't worry. I'm sure I'll annoy you at some point in the future

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, the fact that it makes it harder for the government to lock people up makes it a good law. It is way to easy for the government to lock people up right now, which is why the US has a larger population of incarcerated people than China, which has a population over 4 times ours.

 

[Peach]

UFC rules do not control here; and the injury may have come after he killed the victim. The STATE seems to think a crime was committed, we will know when we know. The important matter NOW, is the Defendant's safety.

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.

As I WROTE, MAY. No, I do not have the answers, nor have I written that I have first hand knowledge.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Here is a shot of his 'guns':

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

784.011 Assault.—
(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.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

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 provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


Read the law yourself.

If Zimmerman pulled his weapon and used it to threaten Martin, then you have assault ("unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another") aggravated with the use of a lethal weapon ("With a deadly weapon without intent to kill") which raises the incident to Aggravated Assault which is a forcible felony. Those committing a forcible felony have their self defense claim negated under Florida Law 776.041.



Try again.

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

A question for the OP...

If a rape victim managed to scratch the eye out of her rapist, does that make the rapist "innocent"?

 

[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.

As I WROTE, MAY. No, I do not have the answers, nor have I written that I have first hand knowledge.

as you can see from that quote chain, my questions were directed at bucs, not you.

 

[American Horse]

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!!!

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

Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin. Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been a hand-struggle for possession of the gun).

But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle. He did not have the gun drawn as they met and while they were still both standng. That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation. Not much information has come out from the police to inform us about what actually happened.

 

[Conservative]

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.

yeah... the placekickers

 

[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?

Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin. Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been s hand-struggle for possession of the gun).
But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle. He did not have the gun drawn as they met while they were still standng. That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation.

Because the guys father told Hannity that, it becomes fact?

Really???

 

[BlindBoo]

Zimmerman may not be guilty, Zimmerman may be guilty. However, injuries are not indicative of who started the fight resulting in the gun shot.



Irrelevant material deleted.


>>>>

UFC rules do not control here; and the injury may have come after he killed the victim. The STATE seems to think a crime was committed, we will know when we know. The important matter NOW, is the Defendant's safety.

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.

First of all there must be someone who clean Zimmerman up. I'll wait for their testemony. Second if his head was being bashed on the concrete, were there blood stains on the concrete? I'll wait for the testemony if there is any on that point.

Who fixed Zimmermans broken nose, they don't fix themselves. Again I'll wait for the testemony...

 

[American Horse]

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

Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin. Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been s hand-struggle for possession of the gun).
But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle. He did not have the gun drawn as they met while they were still standng. That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation.

Because the guys father told Hannity that, it becomes fact?

Really???

Not necessarily, but it makes total sense, and sorry, but to you it is so unbelievable because it discredits about ten of your previous posts where you describe him as walking around with gun drawn. For my part, I don't see Zim drawing a gun until he felt he actually needed to use it. His comments/reports to the police during the 911 call do not sound like an irrational man to me. And if that is his report to the officers it supports or fits why he was questioned but not held.

 

[Peach]

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.

As I WROTE, MAY. No, I do not have the answers, nor have I written that I have first hand knowledge.

as you can see from that quote chain, my questions were directed at bucs, not you.

My apologies, I thought it was directed at me. Again, I do not have the facts, they will ascertained as the process continues.

 

[WorldWatcher]

still missing the point. If it worked the way you think they would charge him with murder, and they wouldn't need a trial because the murder charge would prove he was not defending himself. Since the law doesn't work that way in this country, they would have to prove that, in addition to being in a fight, he was also robbing the 7-11 where Martin got the Skittles.

I hope that explanation isn't to complicated for you, but I expect to be disappointed.

I didn't say that the scenerio is the way I think it went down. Some of us are able to keep and open mind and can consider alternatives.



They did charge him with murder.



Under our legal system, charge does not equal conviction, not the way out legal system works. A suspect must either admit to a crime or there is a trial to determine guilty or not guilty.



This makes no sense. Martin didn't rob the 7-11 and neither did Zimmerman so the state would have nothing to prove regarding robbery.

If they were to attempt to show that Zimmerman was in the act of committing a forcible felony against Martin it would have nothing to do with 7-11. But of course there is no public evidence that the state could show this.

I hope that explanation isn't to complicated for you, but I expect to be disappointed.

Sorry you are so confused about how the legal system works and it appears basic facts of the case (thinking charge = guilty, that Zimmerman robbed the 7-11). Again it appears that the state has no evidence to support Zimmerman as a forcible felon which makes this discussion academic.


>>>>

Keeping an open mind does not mean considering the possibility that the Moon is made of green cheese, it means waiting for the facts to come out. By asserting your wrong interpretation of Florida law you are not keeping an open mind, you are insisting that your interpretation is the only possible one that counts. Can you show a single case in Florida where the state ever successfully asserted that a person who started a fight was not able to argue self defense simply because, by virtue of him starting a fight, he was committing a felony?

Of course not, because it never happened. That alone proves you are wrong in your interpretation, because prosecutors would love to invoke that clause in order to get more convictions.

Get your head out of your ass and start dealing with the real world, and stop insisting that pointing out that ghosts are real proves you have an open mind.

This has always been presented as an alternative to scenario to the "Martin Attacked First" crowd and at this point is as valid as any other scenario the fact that you don't want it considered is not my problem.

As I've said, without evidence (either way) the default decision should be in Zimmerman's favor.


>>>>

 

[Ed Spacer]

No offense.
people need to stop sticking up for illiterate gangers.
zimmerman was defending himself.
itll be sad if an innocent man goes to jail simply to stop raceriots of obamas gang.

 

[koshergrl]

Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin. Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been s hand-struggle for possession of the gun).
But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle. He did not have the gun drawn as they met while they were still standng. That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation.

Because the guys father told Hannity that, it becomes fact?

Really???

Not necessarily, but it makes total sense, and sorry, but to you it is so unbelievable because it discredits about ten of your previous posts where you describe him as walking around with gun drawn. For my part, I don't see Zim drawing a gun until he felt he actually needed to use it. His comments/reports to the police during the 911 call do not sound like an irrational man to me. And if that is his report to the officers it supports why he was questioned and not held.

If his gun had been drawn, Martin would never have jumped on him and started pounding him.

 

[Conservative]

Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin. Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been s hand-struggle for possession of the gun).
But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle. He did not have the gun drawn as they met while they were still standng. That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation.

Because the guys father told Hannity that, it becomes fact?

Really???

Not necessarily, but it makes total sense, and sorry, but to you it is so unbelievable because it discredits about ten of your previous posts where you describe him as walking around with gun drawn. For my part, I don't see Zim drawing a gun until he felt he actually needed to use it. His comments/reports to the police during the 911 call do not sound like an irrational man to me. And if that is his report to the officers it supports why he was questioned and not held.

Show me 5 of the 10 posts where I claimed Zimmerman was walking around with his gun drawn.

I have not got the slightest idea if he walked around with a gun drawn or not. If he drew before or after any involvement directly with Treyvon. You'd know that if you actually read any of my posts in this thread, you incredible moron.

I have consistently said no one here knows for a fact what exactly happens, or in what order events took place. THAT, is for the trial to determine.

 

[bodecea]

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 see that watching UFC has rotted your brain.

 

[koshergrl]

Unfortunately, it appears the majority of progressives don't understand the theory of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Or even due process, that protects citizens from being rounded up and thrown in jail on allegations that have no feet to stand upon...

Color me shocked.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Anyone thats lived in a bad neighborhood knows these teen and young adults think their illiterate culture run the streets.