George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Ravi]

Bullshit. What 'eye' witness. There is a woman who claims to have heard the incident and she thinks it was Martin yelling for help, but the physical evidence shows she was being delusional.

Goodbye, liar. I understand now your aim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just buying into stereotypes.

And did it ever occur to you that you have you head up your ****?

and then some

ROFLMAO!
At least you are honest about it.

But don't worry, ...

I never worry about what what people do with their nether regions.

...even if it wasn't an inside joke I'm sure you still wouldn't have got it.

Yeah, because you are just too smart for us redneck hill-billies to ever understand, right?

**** off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bullshit. What 'eye' witness. There is a woman who claims to have heard the incident and she thinks it was Martin yelling for help, but the physical evidence shows she was being delusional.

Goodbye, liar. I understand now your aim.

Cry me a river.

How about answering the ******* question?

 

[Liability]

And did it ever occur to you that you have you head up your ****?

and then some

ROFLMAO!
At least you are honest about it.

But don't worry, ...

I never worry about what what people do with their nether regions.

...even if it wasn't an inside joke I'm sure you still wouldn't have got it.

Yeah, because you are just too smart for us redneck hill-billies to ever understand, right?

**** off.

Actually, it appears that it was a fairly inside baseball kind of reference to one of Ravi's dumber pronouncements.

 

[manifold]

And did it ever occur to you that you have you head up your ****?

and then some

ROFLMAO!
At least you are honest about it.

But don't worry, ...

I never worry about what what people do with their nether regions.

...even if it wasn't an inside joke I'm sure you still wouldn't have got it.

Yeah, because you are just too smart for us redneck hill-billies to ever understand, right?

**** off.

I didn't even know you were a shit kicker. Although if I'd given it even the slightest bit of thought I'm sure I could've sussed it out. But thanks all the same.

 

[Conservative]

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

Zimmerman: (hmmm...there's a black guy... walking... I FEEL THREATENED!)

BAM!

 

[Liability]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

Zimmerman: (hmmm...there's a black guy... walking... I FEEL THREATENED!)

BAM!

Ravi for the Defense: "Yes, the law CLEARLY allows for that! Why? Well, it requires you to contemplate something subjective. Uhm. Anyway, it HAS to be 'not guilty!' "

 

[Ravi]

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

Zimmerman: (hmmm...there's a black guy... walking... I FEEL THREATENED!)

BAM!

Ravi for the Defense: "Yes, the law CLEARLY allows for that! Why? Well, it requires you to contemplate something subjective. Uhm. Anyway, it HAS to be 'not guilty!' "

If Martin had been following him he might have reasonably been fearful. But he wasn't, so no, the analogy does not compute.

 

[Liability]

Zimmerman: (hmmm...there's a black guy... walking... I FEEL THREATENED!)

BAM!

Ravi for the Defense: "Yes, the law CLEARLY allows for that! Why? Well, it requires you to contemplate something subjective. Uhm. Anyway, it HAS to be 'not guilty!' "

If Martin had been following him he might have reasonably been fearful. But he wasn't, so no, the analogy does not compute.

According to your imbecile logic, all that is required is fear.

So don't quibble. Stick to your idiotic position.

 

[beagle9]

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Uh Oh Ravi, I don't see anywhere where it could be interpreted or even construed to mean what you had written earlier that this law possibly would mean or does mean in your words. I'm real good at comprehending when reading (maybe not so good at spelling etc. I will admit), but pretty good at having a common since ability to decifer most of what people are saying and/or what they are up to doing, along with knowing the meaning of many things when I come across them. This is either by their words spoken or by their actions in which sometimes speak louder than their words in which are spoken.

I guess you just went for it when posting this in defense or respect to what you may have thought about it, but I think you are in with some pretty smart people here, and you may be getting deep into it, that's if you try and pull the wool over their eyes for to many times ... B )

 

[Ravi]

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Uh Oh Ravi, I don't see anywhere where it could be interpreted or even construed to mean what you had written earlier that this law possibly would mean or does mean in your words. I'm real good at comprehending when reading (maybe not so good at spelling etc. I will admit), but pretty good at having a common since ability to decifer most of what people are saying and/or what they are up to doing, along with knowing the meaning of many things when I come across them. This is either by their words spoken or by their actions in which sometimes speak louder than their words in which are spoken.

I guess you just went for it when posting this in defense or respect to what you may have thought about it, but I think you are in with some pretty smart people here, and you may be getting deep into it, that's if you try and pull the wool over their eyes for to many times ... B )

uh, okay, but I don't really see how this can be misinterpreted.

against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force

Unless you mean that being followed by someone that ends up killing you isn't actually grounds for a pre-emptive strike.

 

[beagle9]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Uh Oh Ravi, I don't see anywhere where it could be interpreted or even construed to mean what you had written earlier that this law possibly would mean or does mean in your words. I'm real good at comprehending when reading (maybe not so good at spelling etc. I will admit), but pretty good at having a common since ability to decifer most of what people are saying and/or what they are up to doing, along with knowing the meaning of many things when I come across them. This is either by their words spoken or by their actions in which sometimes speak louder than their words in which are spoken.

I guess you just went for it when posting this in defense or respect to what you may have thought about it, but I think you are in with some pretty smart people here, and you may be getting deep into it, that's if you try and pull the wool over their eyes for to many times ... B )

uh, okay, but I don't really see how this can be misinterpreted.

against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force

Unless you mean that being followed by someone that ends up killing you isn't actually grounds for a pre-emptive strike.

Not going to work, otherwise by taking what you have taken from the written material out of context, you attempt to either add or take away from it by this tactic... To keep the meaning straight and not tampered with, it must remain always within it's proper context, in so that it doesn't become distorted or confused in these ways that which you are mistaken about my friend.

 

[Ariux]

Unless you mean that being followed by someone that ends up killing you isn't actually grounds for a pre-emptive strike.

"Little" Trayvon, 5 minutes from home, 20 minutes from brutally assaulting someone.

You keep forgetting the part about Travon brutally assaulting a good man. Now, the shit is dead. BTW, he really does look like a turd.

 

[taichiliberal]

The REAL doctor says he was injured: you're NOT a doctor. You're just Peach, a ******* moron on the Internet.

The FAMILY doctor.....bit of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say? And Zimmerman went to him THE NEXT DAY TO GET PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO WORK! Hardly the actions of a man who had his head "bashed" in, or suffered wounds from a life and death struggle.

But no concussion, no prescription for pain killers (which would be interesting being that Zimmerman is ALREADY on mood altering prescription drugs). The paramedics that treated him at the scene do not corroborate the "severity" take that the family doctor does. And Zimmerman NEVER went to the hospital.

Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie. Carry on.

If he didn't get hurt why did he need to go to the doctor to return to work?

That is indeed a question of merit given that he DID NOT go to the hospital that night. It just adds to the dubious nature of Zimmerman's scenario. Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie.

 

[taichiliberal]

One LAST time for C1200:

Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Defined

Q. How is an emergency medical condition defined in the Baker Act?
The Baker Act has no separate definition for an emergency medical condition; it refers to the hospital
licensure law for this definition, as follows.

395.002 Definitions.-- As used in this chapter:
(8) "Emergency medical condition" means:
(a) A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may
include severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably
be expected to result in any of the following:
1. Serious jeopardy to patient health, including a pregnant woman or fetus.
2. Serious impairment to bodily functions.
3. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
(b) With respect to a pregnant woman:
1. That there is inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery;
2. That a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus; or
3. That there is evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions or rupture of the
membranes.
(9) "Emergency services and care" means medical screening, examination, and evaluation by
a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, by other appropriate personnel under
the supervision of a physician, to determine if an emergency medical condition exists and, if it
does, the care, treatment, or surgery by a physician necessary to relieve or eliminate the
emergency medical condition, within the service capability of the facility.

Don't hold your breath waiting for her to concede a point despite the facts.

 

[taichiliberal]

It's truly sad when dimwitted little sheet wearers like Ariux try their hand at debating a subject based on the facts, and instead rely on their biased myopia to discern all information.

Case in point: Ariux confuses the Chief of Police with the Chief of Detectives....the chief of Detectives who was in charge of the case was the one who filed an affidavit for arrest.

Compounding his ignorance, Ariux then asserts that if you criticize the police for not doing a proper job of securing the crime scene, then you cannot point out that the chief detective determined their was grounds for an arrest based on his interview with Zimmerman.

Someone needs to educate our dear pointy hooded Ariux that many a criminal case has been lost because the foresnics were botched, or someone wasn't Mirandized properly. Zimmerman may NOT even get to trial if a judge goes for the Stand Your Ground defense. But if he does, the case may again fall apart due to poor police work, as the NY Times article I cited shows.

The discussion on this thread however, is about what evidence is available and how that relates to the credibility of Zimmerman's claims of self defense. To date, Zimmerman's story just doesn't play well, as the damning 911 dispatch call record shows. This combined with Zimmerman's own personal police run-ins and other information does not bode well as to his mindset and actions on that night.

I refer to jokers like Ariux as "Zimmerman Zombies" because their brains effectively go dead the second facts and logic contradict their beliefs. And as the chronology of the posts shows, Ariux is indeed dead from the neck up on this issue.

Bump not because Ariux is a retard but because a poTiental murder might get away scot free because conservates pased a law that makes murder legal and because some police officers are less component then a ******* 5 year old. I mean seriously the guy kills someone and you don’t take him into custody.

They did take him into custody. There's even a video to prove it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-_Qn9ZEj9Q]George Zimmerman in handcuffs night of shooting - YouTube[/ame]

He was detained....held for questioning, NOT formally arrested. Had he been arrested, he would have been put in jail to await a hearing and bail setting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lord Almighty, dont you get the difference between 'feeling threatened' vrs 'reasonably believe' you are threatened?

A guy pulling a gun on me is being reasonably threatened, but some guy walking behind me for a few hundred feet is NOT reasonably being believed to be threatened.

And yet Martin is dead.

As he should be since he tried to KILL a PERSON with his fists, idjit.

This is why I've repeatedly stated that "reasonable" it too subjective for this law.

Only a leftwingnut cant see the resonableness in defending oneself when being pummeled lying on the ground vrs assaulting someone simply because you think that they were following you.

How can you be this stupid?

The question isn't "how can she be this stupid", but "how can she be this stupid, and still be able to turn the computer on?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not lying shit-for-brains.

Zimmerman said that, in effect, Martin was snooping.

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]

Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]

Summary; Martin was SNOOPING, douche bag.

Walking around talking on the phone.

And what about casing houses prevents you from talking on the phone dumbass?

Liability has you nailed to a T. You are just an ignorant racist piece of stinky stupidass.

He also wasn't talking on the phone when Zimmerman initially spotted him and called the police. We know this, because the phone records tell us Zimmerman called the police at 7:09 pm, and Martin's call with his girlfriend started at 7:12 pm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The FAMILY doctor.....bit of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say? And Zimmerman went to him THE NEXT DAY TO GET PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO WORK! Hardly the actions of a man who had his head "bashed" in, or suffered wounds from a life and death struggle.

But no concussion, no prescription for pain killers (which would be interesting being that Zimmerman is ALREADY on mood altering prescription drugs). The paramedics that treated him at the scene do not corroborate the "severity" take that the family doctor does. And Zimmerman NEVER went to the hospital.

Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie. Carry on.

If he didn't get hurt why did he need to go to the doctor to return to work?

That is indeed a question of merit given that he DID NOT go to the hospital that night. It just adds to the dubious nature of Zimmerman's scenario. Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie.

Nothing curious about it at all, unless you have your head up your ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ravi for the Defense: "Yes, the law CLEARLY allows for that! Why? Well, it requires you to contemplate something subjective. Uhm. Anyway, it HAS to be 'not guilty!' "

If Martin had been following him he might have reasonably been fearful. But he wasn't, so no, the analogy does not compute.

According to your imbecile logic, all that is required is fear.

So don't quibble. Stick to your idiotic position.

As a woman, I am automatically concerned and a bit fearful when a man is walking behind me at night. That still doesn't give me the right to turn around and beat the holy bejesus out of him, despite the fact that any male at all is more of a potential physical threat to me than Zimmerman was to Martin (sans the gun, which Martin didn't know he was carrying).

The right to defend yourself through violence requires more than just the other person's mere physical presence.