George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Supposn]

KissMy, you’re missing the point.

If you’re confronted by an armed man, and prior or during a struggle you become aware that your opponent is “packing”, YOUR perception of being in mortal danger provides you with legal right (if you can), to take control of that gun or kill your opponent while attempting to do so.
An unarmed person has much less (than an armed person’s opportunity) to escape to safety.

Possession of gun has extremely serious responsibilities attached to that privilege.

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, he has lost all legal protection until he's able to withdraw from the conflict.

Under such circumstances Zimmerman's injury or death would have been due to his own recklessness and similarly he's now charged with murder due to his own recklessness.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kyUhRsLBc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired.

She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.

She said there was no flash when she heard it.

No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

She said there were multiple shots fired.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.

She contradicts every statements she makes.

No she doesn't.

She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!

No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.


>>>>

 

[Liability]

Even police are not justified in using excessive force against a subdued man.

Beating a subdued man angers crowd

I saw what looked like one cop using the stick. It looked pretty harsh. But I couldn't make out what the guy on the bottom of the pile was doing at that time. Could it be that he was resisting being cuffed? What's the guard/cop supposed to do. Just mindlessly struggle with the guy until he tires and THEN cuff him?

The incident might well be an example of excessive force. Then again, I suggest there is insufficient evidence of it to be able to tell conclusively.

Maybe if we all look again?

 

[KissMy]

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

Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired.

She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.

She said there was no flash when she heard it.

No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.

She contradicts every statements she makes.

No she doesn't.

She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!

No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

 

[Ravi]

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

Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired.

She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.



No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.



No she doesn't.

She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!

No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired.

She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.



No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.



No she doesn't.

She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!

No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

I notice you don't link to those interviews to show that (a) her story changed or (b) even if it was the same person. Interesting that you can hunt up fast food videos and foreign soccer videos though.



OK, We'll have to compare her statements with what the Jury hears and it will be for them to decide.


What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel. Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .


The fact is that the jury will hear them all and will decide on their own.


BTW - Have you followed the Edwards trail? Notice that Young's wife testified as to what went on with a phone conversation. Some think the girlfriends testimony will to excluded, I don't think so.



>>>>

 

[KissMy]

What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel. Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .

That is bullshit. I discount the ear-witness assumptions, the ones who say my feeling is this or that & the ones who change their stories depending on the interviewer. There are only 2 eye-witness who were outside & saw the fight. John's house was the closest. That lady is !!!

The screams numerous screams for help on the 911 tape & the only 2 eye-witness & they said it was GZ screaming. That is what I give the most credibility. The rest are just feelings from some scared women.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel. Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .

That is bullshit. I discount the ear-witness assumptions, the ones who say my feeling is this or that & the ones who change their stories depending on the interviewer. There are only 2 eye-witness who were outside & saw the fight. John's house was the closest. That lady is !!!

The screams numerous screams for help on the 911 tape & the only 2 eye-witness & they said it was GZ screaming. That is what I give the most credibility. The rest are just feelings from some scared women.

Thank you for confirming my statement.


Still not link to where THIS woman changed her statement?


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

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



She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.



No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.



No she doesn't.



No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?

Still looking?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?

Still looking?

looks like KissMy pulled a Ravi on you Ravi

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.

Things change if Zimmerman displayed the weapon and threatened Martin...

• Florida Statute 784.011 (Assault) exists when one person threatens (verbally or by act) another person and appears to have the ability to do so.
• Florida Statute 784.021 (Aggravated Assault) exists when a person commits assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or commit a felony.
• Florida Statute 787.02 (False Imprisonment) makes it a felony to unlawfully try to restrain another person from leaving without lawful authority.
• Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of force by an aggressor) - Removes an individuals self defense immunity from prosecution if the individual was in the commission of a forcible felony.

**IF** (BIG IF) the state were to show that Martin attempted to leave the confrontation and Zimmerman grabbed (assault) Martin and attempted to keep him from leaving (unlawful detention) then Zimmerman would have been committing a forcible felony under 776.041. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman then none of that would apply and Zimmerman's self defense claim would be intact.

At this point we don't know exactly what happened and of critical importance are those seconds between the end of the girlfriends call (known by phone records) and the discharge of the firearm (time stamped on the 911 calls). At this point no witness has come forward into the public arena who can undermine or corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story. (Remember, the fact that someone has injuries from a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.)

World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that Martin might legally murder Zimmerman; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.

You don't "legally murder" someone since murder by definition is against the law, it would be more appropriate to refer to justifiable (legal) homicide (taking a human life).

It's possible, but then in my opinion the Jury will not have done it's duty correctly. For them to find Zimmerman guilty of a crime, they would first have to show that Zimmerman acted in a criminal manner. At this point there is no evidence that he did.

Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's incorrect, the individual under 776.041 loses self defense immunity **ONLY** if they are in the act of committing a forcible felony or fail to take an escape route if presented.

To turn your statement around and look at it from the other side then. Any armed civilian can initiate a confrontation, have the person respond, then shoot them and call it justified under self defense and be immune from prosecution.

Self defense laws are intended to protect the VICTIMs of crimes from being prosecuted, they were not intended to protect the initiator of crimes.

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

Edit to clarify.

Scenario #1:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is not the aggressor and Martin is. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty".

Scenario #2:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty". Under Florida law (784..011) simple assault is a misdemeanor and even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, if the fight escalated he would not lose his self defense immunity under 776.041.

Scenario #3:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults with action of attempting to unlawfully detain Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. If this were true, Zimmerman loses self defense immunity under Florida Law (776.041) because Zimmerman is in the act of committing a forcible felony. ***BUT** the state would have the burden of proof to establish that Zimmerman's conduct was unlawful, if such conclusive evidence were not to exist, then Zimmerman would still be found "not guilty" based on presumption of innocence for lack of evidence.


>>>>

Why do you keep coming up with all these scenarios? Under Florida law it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters is a single question, was Zimmerman's belief that he was in danger reasonable? There is zip, zero, nada, no, zilch evidence that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to escape capture for one, at the time the confrontation occurred, so your imaginary insistence that it is a viable scenario only makes you look stupid. .

By the way, it is not illegal to make a citizen's arrest in Florida if the person making the arrest has a reasonable belief the other person committed a felony. that makes your argument that, if this is what happened, even more absurd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.

Things change if Zimmerman displayed the weapon and threatened Martin...

• Florida Statute 784.011 (Assault) exists when one person threatens (verbally or by act) another person and appears to have the ability to do so.
• Florida Statute 784.021 (Aggravated Assault) exists when a person commits assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or commit a felony.
• Florida Statute 787.02 (False Imprisonment) makes it a felony to unlawfully try to restrain another person from leaving without lawful authority.
• Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of force by an aggressor) - Removes an individuals self defense immunity from prosecution if the individual was in the commission of a forcible felony.

**IF** (BIG IF) the state were to show that Martin attempted to leave the confrontation and Zimmerman grabbed (assault) Martin and attempted to keep him from leaving (unlawful detention) then Zimmerman would have been committing a forcible felony under 776.041. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman then none of that would apply and Zimmerman's self defense claim would be intact.

At this point we don't know exactly what happened and of critical importance are those seconds between the end of the girlfriends call (known by phone records) and the discharge of the firearm (time stamped on the 911 calls). At this point no witness has come forward into the public arena who can undermine or corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story. (Remember, the fact that someone has injuries from a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.)

World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that Martin might legally murder Zimmerman; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.

Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.

Respectfully, Supposn

If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin

Physically confronted? You mean if he asked what he was doing walking around the neighborhood?

 

[KissMy]

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



She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.



No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.

No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms. Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot". Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.



No she doesn't.



No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up. We know Martin didn't stand up.

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?

Did you hear her on the 911 call??? - She is fucking whacked!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU"]Trayvon Martin Witness speaks to CNN[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.

Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?

Did you hear her on the 911 call??? - She is fucking whacked!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU"]Trayvon Martin Witness speaks to CNN[/ame]

None of that interview contradicts what she's said. I asked you to link to her contradictions.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that Martin might legally murder Zimmerman; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.

You don't "legally murder" someone since murder by definition is against the law, it would be more appropriate to refer to justifiable (legal) homicide (taking a human life).

It's possible, but then in my opinion the Jury will not have done it's duty correctly. For them to find Zimmerman guilty of a crime, they would first have to show that Zimmerman acted in a criminal manner. At this point there is no evidence that he did.

Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's incorrect, the individual under 776.041 loses self defense immunity **ONLY** if they are in the act of committing a forcible felony or fail to take an escape route if presented.

To turn your statement around and look at it from the other side then. Any armed civilian can initiate a confrontation, have the person respond, then shoot them and call it justified under self defense and be immune from prosecution.

Self defense laws are intended to protect the VICTIMs of crimes from being prosecuted, they were not intended to protect the initiator of crimes.

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

Edit to clarify.

Scenario #1:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is not the aggressor and Martin is. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty".

Scenario #2:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty". Under Florida law (784..011) simple assault is a misdemeanor and even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, if the fight escalated he would not lose his self defense immunity under 776.041.

Scenario #3:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults with action of attempting to unlawfully detain Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. If this were true, Zimmerman loses self defense immunity under Florida Law (776.041) because Zimmerman is in the act of committing a forcible felony. ***BUT** the state would have the burden of proof to establish that Zimmerman's conduct was unlawful, if such conclusive evidence were not to exist, then Zimmerman would still be found "not guilty" based on presumption of innocence for lack of evidence.


>>>>

Why do you keep coming up with all these scenarios?

Why? Probably a couple of different reasons.

1. First, unlike some other people I seem to use a different thought process. Some people decide guilty or innocence and then then cherry pick the facts they like that conform to their preconceived bias, then ignore facts they don't like. On there other hand some of us research and determine a wide range of facts and or statements then try to develop multiple possible scenarios that conform to the majority of the known information. Then as more information becomes available then the scenarios are modified or rejected depending on whether the information is corroborative or contradictory.

2. Secondly, is an ability to remove emotion from the examination. That comes from 20-years of being an Aviation Electronics Technician and systems analyst and as a Naval Aircrewman working as a Systems Operator and Electronic Warfare Operator. If you don't learn to evaluate information in a non-emotional way then people could die. I've carried that ability to analyze into the civilian world as an Information Systems Administrator and Database designer which often requires the systems analysis mindset coupled developing to project what possible ways users will use the system which might produce unexpected results. Then designing the system to minimize, or error trap, those actions and lead users down the desired operational path.

Under Florida law it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters is a single question, was Zimmerman's belief that he was in danger reasonable?

The is absolutely wrong and repeating it doesn't change it and make it go away. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by an Aggressor) specifically deals with the conditions under which an aggressor loses immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes.

776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

There is zip, zero, nada, no, zilch evidence that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to escape capture for one, at the time the confrontation occurred,

I have never claimed that there was any evidence that proved one way or the other as to whether Zimmerman or Martin was the initiator of aggression. In each one of the scenarios presented I've clearly indicated what the likely outcome would/should be under the known information and in each case a logical analysis would return a "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman unless the state presents new evidence showing that Zimmerman's actions removed his self defense immunity under 776.041.

By the way, it is not illegal to make a citizen's arrest in Florida if the person making the arrest has a reasonable belief the other person committed a felony...

That may be true or not in Florida, feel free to research it and report on the relative Florida Statutes. One thing that should be apparently obvious though is that if Zimmerman were to try to claim (under scenario #3) that he was attempting to detain Martin because Martin was committing a felony, then it would be the defenses responsibility to provide as an affirmative defense that Martin was in the process of committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatcher tape would indicate that he (Martin) was taking any such actions that qualify as a felony such as rape, murder, grand theft, kidnapping, Aggravated Assault and Battery, multiple offense DUI, omitting financial resources during a bond application in a felony case (sorry, couldn't resist the humor), etc.

so your imaginary insistence that it is a viable scenario only makes you look stupid.

that makes your argument that, if this is what happened, even more absurd.

Actually I'm discussing possibilities in a logical and reasonable manner, name calling is what makes someone look stupid and their posts look absurd.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.

Things change if Zimmerman displayed the weapon and threatened Martin...

• Florida Statute 784.011 (Assault) exists when one person threatens (verbally or by act) another person and appears to have the ability to do so.
• Florida Statute 784.021 (Aggravated Assault) exists when a person commits assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or commit a felony.
• Florida Statute 787.02 (False Imprisonment) makes it a felony to unlawfully try to restrain another person from leaving without lawful authority.
• Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of force by an aggressor) - Removes an individuals self defense immunity from prosecution if the individual was in the commission of a forcible felony.

**IF** (BIG IF) the state were to show that Martin attempted to leave the confrontation and Zimmerman grabbed (assault) Martin and attempted to keep him from leaving (unlawful detention) then Zimmerman would have been committing a forcible felony under 776.041. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman then none of that would apply and Zimmerman's self defense claim would be intact.

At this point we don't know exactly what happened and of critical importance are those seconds between the end of the girlfriends call (known by phone records) and the discharge of the firearm (time stamped on the 911 calls). At this point no witness has come forward into the public arena who can undermine or corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story. (Remember, the fact that someone has injuries from a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.)

World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that Martin might legally murder Zimmerman; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.

Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.

Respectfully, Supposn

If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin

Physically confronted? You mean if he asked what he was doing walking around the neighborhood?

"Physically confronting" Martin is a null statement as it does not describe the conditions of that confrontation. If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked "Who are you?" or "I'm the Neighborhood Watch Captain and I don't recognize you as living here, what is your business in our community?" If that happened and then Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would be fully justified in defending himself including the use of lethal force at the point where he felt his life was in danger or he would suffer great bodily injury. On the other hand if Zimmerman walked up and said "You better tell me who you are or I'm going to kick your ass?" and through tone and inflection Martin had a reasonable fear that Zimmerman would follow through on his threat, then Zimmerman was committing assault and Martin had a right under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't "legally murder" someone since murder by definition is against the law, it would be more appropriate to refer to justifiable (legal) homicide (taking a human life).

It's possible, but then in my opinion the Jury will not have done it's duty correctly. For them to find Zimmerman guilty of a crime, they would first have to show that Zimmerman acted in a criminal manner. At this point there is no evidence that he did.



That's incorrect, the individual under 776.041 loses self defense immunity **ONLY** if they are in the act of committing a forcible felony or fail to take an escape route if presented.

To turn your statement around and look at it from the other side then. Any armed civilian can initiate a confrontation, have the person respond, then shoot them and call it justified under self defense and be immune from prosecution.

Self defense laws are intended to protect the VICTIMs of crimes from being prosecuted, they were not intended to protect the initiator of crimes.

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

Edit to clarify.

Scenario #1:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is not the aggressor and Martin is. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty".

Scenario #2:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty". Under Florida law (784..011) simple assault is a misdemeanor and even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, if the fight escalated he would not lose his self defense immunity under 776.041.

Scenario #3:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults with action of attempting to unlawfully detain Martin. The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin. If this were true, Zimmerman loses self defense immunity under Florida Law (776.041) because Zimmerman is in the act of committing a forcible felony. ***BUT** the state would have the burden of proof to establish that Zimmerman's conduct was unlawful, if such conclusive evidence were not to exist, then Zimmerman would still be found "not guilty" based on presumption of innocence for lack of evidence.


>>>>

Why do you keep coming up with all these scenarios?

Why? Probably a couple of different reasons.

1. First, unlike some other people I seem to use a different thought process. Some people decide guilty or innocence and then then cherry pick the facts they like that conform to their preconceived bias, then ignore facts they don't like. On there other hand some of us research and determine a wide range of facts and or statements then try to develop multiple possible scenarios that conform to the majority of the known information. Then as more information becomes available then the scenarios are modified or rejected depending on whether the information is corroborative or contradictory.

2. Secondly, is an ability to remove emotion from the examination. That comes from 20-years of being an Aviation Electronics Technician and systems analyst and as a Naval Aircrewman working as a Systems Operator and Electronic Warfare Operator. If you don't learn to evaluate information in a non-emotional way then people could die. I've carried that ability to analyze into the civilian world as an Information Systems Administrator and Database designer which often requires the systems analysis mindset coupled developing to project what possible ways users will use the system which might produce unexpected results. Then designing the system to minimize, or error trap, those actions and lead users down the desired operational path.



The is absolutely wrong and repeating it doesn't change it and make it go away. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by an Aggressor) specifically deals with the conditions under which an aggressor loses immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes.

776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate



I have never claimed that there was any evidence that proved one way or the other as to whether Zimmerman or Martin was the initiator of aggression. In each one of the scenarios presented I've clearly indicated what the likely outcome would/should be under the known information and in each case a logical analysis would return a "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman unless the state presents new evidence showing that Zimmerman's actions removed his self defense immunity under 776.041.



That may be true or not in Florida, feel free to research it and report on the relative Florida Statutes. One thing that should be apparently obvious though is that if Zimmerman were to try to claim (under scenario #3) that he was attempting to detain Martin because Martin was committing a felony, then it would be the defenses responsibility to provide as an affirmative defense that Martin was in the process of committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatcher tape would indicate that he (Martin) was taking any such actions that qualify as a felony such as rape, murder, grand theft, kidnapping, Aggravated Assault and Battery, multiple offense DUI, omitting financial resources during a bond application in a felony case (sorry, couldn't resist the humor), etc.

so your imaginary insistence that it is a viable scenario only makes you look stupid.

that makes your argument that, if this is what happened, even more absurd.

Actually I'm discussing possibilities in a logical and reasonable manner, name calling is what makes someone look stupid and their posts look absurd.

>>>>

You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.

 

[Supposn]

"Physically confronting" Martin is a null statement as it does not describe the conditions of that confrontation. If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked "Who are you?" or "I'm the Neighborhood Watch Captain and I don't recognize you as living here, what is your business in our community?" If that happened and then Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would be fully justified in defending himself including the use of lethal force at the point where he felt his life was in danger or he would suffer great bodily injury. On the other hand if Zimmerman walked up and said "You better tell me who you are or I'm going to kick your ass?" and through tone and inflection Martin had a reasonable fear that Zimmerman would follow through on his threat, then Zimmerman was committing assault and Martin had a right under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.

World Watche, you’re supposing you have described a conversation; it’s actually an explicit threat. The extent of extortion is dependent upon the words and tone of the delivered threat.

Within every police affiliated civic watch organization I’ve ever heard of has some basic guide lines if not formal training. They are not supposed to be armed. They are supposed to be polite and non-threatening. It’s extremely unusual, (if not contrary to explicit police advice or instructions) to stop and question anyone.

Zimmerman was a man in plain clothes from an unmarked car. If he attempted to stop and/or pretend any official stratus and additionally seemed obviously acting contrary to any police procedures or advice, that’s threatening. And all of this supposes that Zimmerman only approached Martin and spoke politely.

Zimmerman didn’t sound in a polite and conciliatory tone when he so to the police on the phone. He didn’t comply when told by the police to not attempt following Martin.

It will be up to a jury to decide to believe Zimmerman or the girl who claims she heard the confrontation on the phone.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.

Good Afternoon...

.....................<<knuckle crack>> Let's have a discussion.

You keep claiming that I've misread it so let's discuss this as adults without the normal ad hominem barbs that some try to insert. I don't need a lawyer as I can read and comprehend the written word quite well. If you feel that my understanding of the law is in error, please provide the details. If you would like a lawyers review of the law, feel free to PM Liability (who is a lawyer) and ask him to post a review of my analysis. I've asked him a few questions here and there and he's been most helpful in expanding our understanding of points of law.

All references to Florida Statutes can be found through the following links were there are Chapter sections with links to the specific law:

• - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
• - Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

In the past, as you've quoted previously, I've provided three possible scenarios and my opinion of how the law applies to those scenarios. First we have Martin as the aggressor, in such a case Zimmerman is fully justified in the use of self defense at the point where he feared for his life or great bodily injury (from here on referring to self defense, the lethal force in cases of possible death of great bodily injury will be an implied understanding). The second scenario involved Zimmerman as what I will refer to as a simple aggressor. That would be the case if Zimmerman was the aggressor but his aggressive actions did not rise to a felony, for example if his actions were simple assault. In such a case, Zimmerman would retrain his self defense immunity as simple assault under Florida law is a misdemeanor and not a felony, unless he was shown to have an opportunity to escape and declined the opportunity (as defined under Florida Law 776.041). The third scenario involved Zimmerman as an aggressor, but in this case his actions rose to the level of a forcible felony, in such cases Florida Law 776.041 kicks in which removes the self defense immunity. Florida Law 776.08 (Forcible Felony) defines what conditions are counted as a forcible felony - aggravated assault is one of those conditions. Just as an example off the top of my head, Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony by simple assault and/or battery (threatening Martin or grabbing him, a misdemeanor) [Florida Law 784.011] coupled with unlawful detention (See END NOTE) (Florida Law 787.02, a felony) - the combination of simple assault with a felony makes it aggravated assault (784.02), a forcible felony. On the other hand Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony through threatening Martin and the display of his firearm (either out of or in the holster) which again would rise to the level of aggravated assault.

Under both the second and third conditions, Zimmerman would be required to make an affirmative defense on his self defense claims. One can assume that such a defense would be built around his statements alone as to who initiated hostilities since there are no witnesses to the beginning of the struggle and the evidence of his injuries (which could be a bloody nose or broken nose and the lacerations on the back of his head) and at that time he feared for his life. Which is a very reasonable self defense claim since he had the injuries. However the burden of proof would then shift to the prosecution to show that regardless of his injuries obtained during the fight, that Zimmerman lost his self defense immunity because he started the fight and: (a) started it with the commission of a forcible felony, or (b) was presented with a chance of escape that a reasonable man would have taken and choose to pursue hostilities. My understanding is that this would actually be a pretrial hearing before Judge Lester, but I could be wrong on that. If Zimmerman makes a good case and the prosecution makes a bad case, then Judge Lester can dismiss the charges.

So now let's review the law and you can respond by showing me where my analysis is faulty.

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

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:​

(a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.​

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor

I think this is pretty self explainitory in that this section of the law applies to those individuals who are using force and they are the aggressor. A little ambigious in terms of verbage, I think something a little clearer would have been warranted, such as "Loss of self defense immunity by an aggressor", but hey - I didn't write the law.​

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

This is an important part, it defines that this section of the law REMOVES the immunity status for self defense as defined in the applicable previous sections of the law which is Chapter 776 (Justifiable Use of Force). The preceding sections of the law that this part nullifies for the aggressor are:

• 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
• 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
• 776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
• 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

So this section of the law removes the previously defined self defense immunity from prosecution for someone who meets the conditions that will be described in the next sections.

What part am I missing?​

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;

Section (1) defines the first of two conditions under which a person who is the aggressor can lose their immunity from prosecution in a situation where they claim self defense.

If the person is attempting to commit, is committing, or is attempting to escape from the commission of a forcible felony and claims self defense, that claim is nullified because of the felonious actions of the aggressor.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

OR (emphasis added)

"Or" is actually a very important component of the law for being only two letters long. It designates that the boolean logic function of "or" here is to be applied when interpreting the construction of the law. The "or" functions says that the meeting of either of the two (or more) conditions described satisfies the logic for truth (boolean truth) and the requirements for that outcome are met. Simply, it means that if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (1), then self defense immunity is removed. Also, if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (2), then self defense immunity is removed. Use of the "or" function does not mean that the individual must meet the conditions of both sections before self defense immunity is nullified.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

Section (2) provides that a person does lose immunity from a self defense claim if they are the initial aggressor, however it adds an "unless" which are conditions under which the self defense immunity is retained. Those conditions then are outline in the next two sub-sections. The idea is that self defense immunity is lost, however it can be restored.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

(a)&#8195;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;

Section (2)(a) provides that if a person is the initial aggressor and has lost immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes that they can regain the lost self defense immunity if the altercation escalates to the point where they fear great bodily injury or death. For example, I grab someone (I'm the initial aggressor with simple assault). The individual pulls a knife escalating the hostilities and now I fear death or great bodily injury, self defense is an option and can be restored if I have not been presented with a means escape and have attempted to take advantage of it or if no means of escape presented itself.

Section (2)(a) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

or

Again the "or" function applies between Sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) as either can restore self defense immunity as long as immunity wasn't lost under Section (1). If Section (1) is satisfied then the conditions required are "true" (boolean logic "true") and self defense is lost.​

(b)&#8195;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.;

Section (2)(b) provides that if the person subject to the original aggression by the assailant (person A) attempts to withdraw and makes it known to the original aggressor (person B) that they are trying to withdraw and the original assailant (person B) continues to prosecute the hostilities - that person B does not regain a self defense immunity if person A then gains the upper hand and using force (including lethal force) to defend them self. For example I mug someone, that someone is able to push me away and tries to run or backs away. I ignore their attempt to end hostilities and reengage the attack. The person I've attempted to mug ends up defending against my re-engagement and proceeds to start kicking my butt to the point where I fear death or great bodily injury. Since they attempted to withdraw, if I were to pull a knife and stab the person to death, I could not claim self defense immunity even though they were winning the fight.

However, Section (2)(b) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

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

END NOTE:

When I mentioned unlawful detention as a possible contributing factor towards establishing a forcible felony, the the claim was made - basically - that "Oh, he can just claim Citizen's Arrest". As was pointed out, Citizen's Arrest provides for the detention of felons so that the police can be called and arrive on scene and take possession of the individual. **IF** the state were to try to remove self defense immunity under 776.041 (which they would have a high burden of proving and public information suggests they don't have the proof) and then the defense were to attempt to counter with a Citizen's Arrest claim, then - IMHO - that would be a disaster. Why? Nothing in the dispatcher call indicated that Martin was in the process of committing a felony. Zimmerman's own words on tape would come back to haunt him. If detailed statements, as of yet not released, to the police that night did not include descriptions of felonious activity by Martin prior to hostilities and later Zimmerman claimed there were, then that would be a huge contradiction. The prosecution would jump on that.


[DISCLAIMER: The above post in no way is trying to impugn Zimmerman; it is simply intended as a discussion of possible scenarios and discussion on the construct of the law.]



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.

Good Afternoon...

.....................<<knuckle crack>> Let's have a discussion.

Fine, I will try this one more time.

You keep claiming that I've misread it so let's discuss this as adults without the normal ad hominem barbs that some try to insert. I don't need a lawyer as I can read and comprehend the written word quite well. If you feel that my understanding of the law is in error, please provide the details. If you would like a lawyers review of the law, feel free to PM Liability (who is a lawyer) and ask him to post a review of my analysis. I've asked him a few questions here and there and he's been most helpful in expanding our understanding of points of law.

Actually, I said misinterpret, not misread. The reason I told you to ask a lawyer is that lawyers approach language differently than doctors, who approach it differently than teachers. Every profession puts their own spin on language, it is an offshoot of the human desire to be part of an exclusive group. The only exception I am aware of to that rule is writers, who, by the nature of their work, have to learn to use language to approach many different groups at different times.

All references to Florida Statutes can be found through the following links were there are Chapter sections with links to the specific law:

• - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
• - Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

In the past, as you've quoted previously, I've provided three possible scenarios and my opinion of how the law applies to those scenarios. First we have Martin as the aggressor, in such a case Zimmerman is fully justified in the use of self defense at the point where he feared for his life or great bodily injury (from here on referring to self defense, the lethal force in cases of possible death of great bodily injury will be an implied understanding). The second scenario involved Zimmerman as what I will refer to as a simple aggressor. That would be the case if Zimmerman was the aggressor but his aggressive actions did not rise to a felony, for example if his actions were simple assault. In such a case, Zimmerman would retrain his self defense immunity as simple assault under Florida law is a misdemeanor and not a felony, unless he was shown to have an opportunity to escape and declined the opportunity (as defined under Florida Law 776.041). The third scenario involved Zimmerman as an aggressor, but in this case his actions rose to the level of a forcible felony, in such cases Florida Law 776.041 kicks in which removes the self defense immunity. Florida Law 776.08 (Forcible Felony) defines what conditions are counted as a forcible felony - aggravated assault is one of those conditions. Just as an example off the top of my head, Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony by simple assault and/or battery (threatening Martin or grabbing him, a misdemeanor) [Florida Law 784.011] coupled with unlawful detention (See END NOTE) (Florida Law 787.02, a felony) - the combination of simple assault with a felony makes it aggravated assault (784.02), a forcible felony. On the other hand Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony through threatening Martin and the display of his firearm (either out of or in the holster) which again would rise to the level of aggravated assault.

No, you provided two alternative explanations to the beginning of the conflict between Martin and Zimmerman, and a fantasy that involves Zimmerman committing a felony and Martin trying to detain him until police arrive. That is the only way your fantasy scenario would apply, and I have specifically challenged you to tell me what felony Zimmerman is being charged with to make that a viable option. You have not yet mentioned one, because none exist, yet you insist your fantasy scenario is viable because the prosecution might amend the indictment.

Funny thing, there is not an indictment in this case because Corey chose to file an affidavit with the court rather than go to the grand jury and get an indictment. There are a number of possible explanations for this, but none of them include her amending the indictment because she is investigating him for bank robbery.

You have postulated that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Martin, and that this gave Martin the right to resist, but the fact is that, under Florida law, anyone who tries to detain a suspect for the police is acting as a ex facto law enforcement officer. Their actions are subject to strict scrutiny in the court after the fact, but it is actually legal, so that makes that argument null and void.

Under both the second and third conditions, Zimmerman would be required to make an affirmative defense on his self defense claims. One can assume that such a defense would be built around his statements alone as to who initiated hostilities since there are no witnesses to the beginning of the struggle and the evidence of his injuries (which could be a bloody nose or broken nose and the lacerations on the back of his head) and at that time he feared for his life. Which is a very reasonable self defense claim since he had the injuries. However the burden of proof would then shift to the prosecution to show that regardless of his injuries obtained during the fight, that Zimmerman lost his self defense immunity because he started the fight and: (a) started it with the commission of a forcible felony, or (b) was presented with a chance of escape that a reasonable man would have taken and choose to pursue hostilities. My understanding is that this would actually be a pretrial hearing before Judge Lester, but I could be wrong on that. If Zimmerman makes a good case and the prosecution makes a bad case, then Judge Lester can dismiss the charges.

Wrong.

Under no scenario is Zimmerman required to do anything. Florida law on self defense is requires that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person accused of murder, or assault, was not reasonably afraid of death or serious injury. this is something I have pointed out numerous times. The applicable laws are 776.013 sections 1 and 3.

So now let's review the law and you can respond by showing me where my analysis is faulty.

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

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:​

(a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.​

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor

I think this is pretty self explainitory in that this section of the law applies to those individuals who are using force and they are the aggressor. A little ambigious in terms of verbage, I think something a little clearer would have been warranted, such as "Loss of self defense immunity by an aggressor", but hey - I didn't write the law.​

This is an important part, it defines that this section of the law REMOVES the immunity status for self defense as defined in the applicable previous sections of the law which is Chapter 776 (Justifiable Use of Force). The preceding sections of the law that this part nullifies for the aggressor are:

• 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
• 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
• 776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
• 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

So this section of the law removes the previously defined self defense immunity from prosecution for someone who meets the conditions that will be described in the next sections.

What part am I missing?​

Section (1) defines the first of two conditions under which a person who is the aggressor can lose their immunity from prosecution in a situation where they claim self defense.

If the person is attempting to commit, is committing, or is attempting to escape from the commission of a forcible felony and claims self defense, that claim is nullified because of the felonious actions of the aggressor.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

"Or" is actually a very important component of the law for being only two letters long. It designates that the boolean logic function of "or" here is to be applied when interpreting the construction of the law. The "or" functions says that the meeting of either of the two (or more) conditions described satisfies the logic for truth (boolean truth) and the requirements for that outcome are met. Simply, it means that if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (1), then self defense immunity is removed. Also, if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (2), then self defense immunity is removed. Use of the "or" function does not mean that the individual must meet the conditions of both sections before self defense immunity is nullified.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

Section (2) provides that a person does lose immunity from a self defense claim if they are the initial aggressor, however it adds an "unless" which are conditions under which the self defense immunity is retained. Those conditions then are outline in the next two sub-sections. The idea is that self defense immunity is lost, however it can be restored.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

Section (2)(a) provides that if a person is the initial aggressor and has lost immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes that they can regain the lost self defense immunity if the altercation escalates to the point where they fear great bodily injury or death. For example, I grab someone (I'm the initial aggressor with simple assault). The individual pulls a knife escalating the hostilities and now I fear death or great bodily injury, self defense is an option and can be restored if I have not been presented with a means escape and have attempted to take advantage of it or if no means of escape presented itself.

Section (2)(a) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

or

Again the "or" function applies between Sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) as either can restore self defense immunity as long as immunity wasn't lost under Section (1). If Section (1) is satisfied then the conditions required are "true" (boolean logic "true") and self defense is lost.​

(b)&#8195;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.;

Section (2)(b) provides that if the person subject to the original aggression by the assailant (person A) attempts to withdraw and makes it known to the original aggressor (person B) that they are trying to withdraw and the original assailant (person B) continues to prosecute the hostilities - that person B does not regain a self defense immunity if person A then gains the upper hand and using force (including lethal force) to defend them self. For example I mug someone, that someone is able to push me away and tries to run or backs away. I ignore their attempt to end hostilities and reengage the attack. The person I've attempted to mug ends up defending against my re-engagement and proceeds to start kicking my butt to the point where I fear death or great bodily injury. Since they attempted to withdraw, if I were to pull a knife and stab the person to death, I could not claim self defense immunity even though they were winning the fight.

However, Section (2)(b) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

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

:

The very first sentence in the law that points out that 776.041 is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law. In order for 776.041 to apply the state has to first prove that (1) the person they are charging was committing a felony at the time of the fight, or (2) that the person they are charging actually started the fight and that his response to the use of force that he initiated was unreasonable because he was not actually in danger. In other words, even if the state can prove that Zimmerman started the fight, which even you admit they cannot, they would still have to prove that Zimmerman belief that he was in danger was unreasonable.

This, I believe, goes back to what I have said all along, it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters was is what Zimmerman believed, and whether it is reasonable.

There is a nor function that occurs before the or. That nor excludes everything that follows it, which is why you are working so hard to invent a fantasy scenario where Zimmerman was involved in a felony. The state has to prove the felony first, then they can apply 776.041 and argue that Zimmerman is not entitled to argue self defense. Alternatively, they could provide a bunch of new witnesses that will testify that Zimmerman started the actual use of force, not a verbal confrontation. To do that they would have to come up with people who had a clear view of the entire incident and that will testify in their favor. My guess is that if they had someone like that they would have trotted them out at the bond hearing to show that Zimmerman, as the aggressor, is a danger.

Apply the nor, then you can apply the or that is built into 776.041.

END NOTE

When I mentioned unlawful detention as a possible contributing factor towards establishing a forcible felony, the the claim was made - basically - that "Oh, he can just claim Citizen's Arrest". As was pointed out, Citizen's Arrest provides for the detention of felons so that the police can be called and arrive on scene and take possession of the individual. **IF** the state were to try to remove self defense immunity under 776.041 (which they would have a high burden of proving and public information suggests they don't have the proof) and then the defense were to attempt to counter with a Citizen's Arrest claim, then - IMHO - that would be a disaster. Why? Nothing in the dispatcher call indicated that Martin was in the process of committing a felony. Zimmerman's own words on tape would come back to haunt him. If detailed statements, as of yet not released, to the police that night did not include descriptions of felonious activity by Martin prior to hostilities and later Zimmerman claimed there were, then that would be a huge contradiction. The prosecution would jump on that.


[DISCLAIMER: The above post in no way is trying to impugn Zimmerman; it is simply intended as a discussion of possible scenarios and discussion on the construct of the law.]



>>>>

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.