George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

Does he have a face?

Yes.



Yes.

Is he a he?

Don't think so, my impression was that he was a she.


>>>>

Republicans will say the testimony doesn't count because it's a woman.

Rush will call her a slut.

That was kind of dumb and doesn't contribute to the discussion of the known facts in the case and how they may fit into different scenarios.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Probably too subtle for some. The statute you are trying to use to defend your argument would only apply if Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to feel from the site of a felony, and Martin was trying to stop him.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this situation, but thanks for letting me know that I am not talking to an actual lawyer.



No you didn't, you just think you did.



It might be Florida law, but it doesn't apply here, and doesn't help the state at all. If the law you are trying to apply here actually applied Zimmerman would be facing the death penalty and multiple charges.

He isn't.

That, sir, is Florida law.

**IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.

Under Florida Law (776.08), that becomes a forcible felony and Zimmerman would no longer qualify for an affirmative defense of self defense under Florida Law 776.041.

That is the Florida Law.

[DISCLAIMER: With the evidence released to the public, it appears that would be difficult to prove. But that does not change the law.]


>>>>

You really are one of the stupid ones aren't you?

Here is the law you are trying to site as proof that Zimmerman is wrong.

At this stage in the process I'm not trying to prove Zimmerman is wrong, I'm not trying to prove Martin was wrong.

I'm examining the facts that have been made public in terms of multiple scenarios that the facts support. Right now we are missing information during those critical sentence that (a) support Zimmerman's version of the events, or (b) conflict with Zimmerman's version of the events.

If I were on the jury and had to vote right now, I'd say "not guilty" as the evidence does not support a Murder 2 charge (IMHO and subject to change based on new information).

Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Funny thing, the second part, which I emphasized, is exactly what I have been saying, it doesn't fracking matter if Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was reacting with more force than was reasonable.

Thanks for making my point in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than me.

Actually under the second part you highly lighted it does matter if Zimmerman was the aggressor. If he was the aggressor AND he was presented with an opportunity to escape the situation that a reasonable person would have used to escape the situation and CHOOSE NOT TO, then the self defense claim is no longer available.

Secondly you appeared to ignore the the first section which also notes that self defense is not available if the individual is involved with committing a forcible felony. If the state were to show (as a possible scenerio for those missing critical seconds) that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (was the aggressor) and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin (felony) then the combination of assault and unlawful detention would be a forcible felony under Florida law.

But to go back to the beginning of this conversation you said (and I paraphrase) that self defense always applies so that when someone is hitting your head on the ground the claim of "self defense" can be used. As you've shown by citing the Florida law, there are cases under that law where the aggressor cannot use the self defense claim and be immune from prosecution.

>>>>

 

[old navy]

Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.

If found not guilty or if the case is thrown out, Z'man will be given back his Second Amendment rights. He has shown a willingness and ability to shoot to kill. Potential murderers would be wise to approach him with caution. Or, as the scenario will probably play out, his killer will do it in a drive-by or other such manner.

 

[Peach]

Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?

Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.

Because the decision to charge Zimmerman is political.

Plain and simple. If you remember correctly, it was the Florida Governor who demanded Prosecutors to "cough *reinvestigate* cough" the case.

This is not a "justice" issue whatsoever. It's glaringly political.

So was the decision not to prosecute him when he was standing over a dead body with a smoking gun.

The decision there was, "We wouldn't want to get the gun nuts upset after they passed a goofy Stand Your Ground law." The cops wanted to charge the guy, the prosecutors said no.

I should point out the Florida Governor is a Republican.

My own view. Zimmerman is guilty in the strict moral sense. His actions led to the death of a kid who wasn't guilty of anything. Trayvon would be alive today if not for George Zimmerman. Now, maybe he can wiggle out under the law, but I hope not.

Dershowitz should be assisting the defense if he sees such a terrible wrong; instead he is making money off of it...........................

 

[Katzndogz]

The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.

 

[Katzndogz]

As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

To claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28. The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration). The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds. From the truck's likely location (based on Zimmerman's description of the location in the dispatcher tape) the truck was likely about 150 yards away from the shooting site. **IF** he began returning at the "OK" acknowledgment he'd have had 833.3% more time to return (2:30) then the 18 seconds traveling away.


>>>>

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Yes there was, there was specific instructions from the Sanford Police department not to get physically involved with any activity reported.


>>>>

Then you have evidence that no one else has because all that is known and no doubt the dispatcher will testify that he said 'we don't need for you to do that".

 

[paperview]

The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.

You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Yes there was, there was specific instructions from the Sanford Police department not to get physically involved with any activity reported.


>>>>

Then you have evidence that no one else has because all that is known and no doubt the dispatcher will testify that he said 'we don't need for you to do that".

The Sanford PD handbook for Neighborhood watch specifically tells them not to get physically involved.

"“What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.”​

Police instruction to Neighborhood Watch personnel not to get physically involved seems pretty clear to me.



http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

 

[tinydancer]

Because the decision to charge Zimmerman is political.

Plain and simple. If you remember correctly, it was the Florida Governor who demanded Prosecutors to "cough *reinvestigate* cough" the case.

This is not a "justice" issue whatsoever. It's glaringly political.

So was the decision not to prosecute him when he was standing over a dead body with a smoking gun.

The decision there was, "We wouldn't want to get the gun nuts upset after they passed a goofy Stand Your Ground law." The cops wanted to charge the guy, the prosecutors said no.

I should point out the Florida Governor is a Republican.

My own view. Zimmerman is guilty in the strict moral sense. His actions led to the death of a kid who wasn't guilty of anything. Trayvon would be alive today if not for George Zimmerman. Now, maybe he can wiggle out under the law, but I hope not.

Dershowitz should be assisting the defense if he sees such a terrible wrong; instead he is making money off of it...........................

If this picture had been available to the Prosecutor, shouldn't it have been made available in the affadavit?

That's what Dershowitz is simply arguing here. That if the Prosecution had this photo and didn't include it in the affadavit, that would be unethical.

 

[paperview]

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Yes there was, there was specific instructions from the Sanford Police department not to get physically involved with any activity reported.


>>>>

Then you have evidence that no one else has because all that is known and no doubt the dispatcher will testify that he said 'we don't need for you to do that".

I've posted this several times now.

Surprised you missed it:




Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook

You will add your “eyes and ears” to
those of the Police Department which
cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
what is happening in your
neighborhood. You will extend their
ability to provide security by reporting
anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, so they can
follow up on your leads. What you will
not do is get physically involved with
any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law
enforcement agency.

^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

In big bolded font the above words there INSIST people are not to " get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."

They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, but twice.
In BOLD letters.

We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as Z was the one who helped facilitate the NW meeting with the Sanford Police Chief for guidelines, and as contact and Captain would necessarily need to be informed of the rules:

Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -Sept 2011:
George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee was coming to next meeting: RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

Feb 2012 Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - George Zimmerman identified as Captain: RTL February 2012 Newsletter

SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman was acting as NW at the time of the shooting: Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:

In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a neighborhood watch program.

"Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse for that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." Zimmerman volunteered to be captain.

"I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force," Dorival said. "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun."

Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times

 

[WorldWatcher]

The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.

Can blind people testify in court as to what they hear? Or are they not to be considered a witness because they can't see?



[Silly question of course.]

>>>>

 

[paperview]

I even took a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.

From the actual Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook

 

[Peach]

So was the decision not to prosecute him when he was standing over a dead body with a smoking gun.

The decision there was, "We wouldn't want to get the gun nuts upset after they passed a goofy Stand Your Ground law." The cops wanted to charge the guy, the prosecutors said no.

I should point out the Florida Governor is a Republican.

My own view. Zimmerman is guilty in the strict moral sense. His actions led to the death of a kid who wasn't guilty of anything. Trayvon would be alive today if not for George Zimmerman. Now, maybe he can wiggle out under the law, but I hope not.

Dershowitz should be assisting the defense if he sees such a terrible wrong; instead he is making money off of it...........................

If this picture had been available to the Prosecutor, shouldn't it have been made available in the affadavit?

That's what Dershowitz is simply arguing here. That if the Prosecution had this photo and didn't include it in the affadavit, that would be unethical.

That is up to the Judge.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Florida Statutes 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

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

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

- (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Yes, but if Zimmerman's actions constituted a felony, it's a whole new ballgame. If you kill some one in the course of committing a felony, even accidentally, you've committed murder.

If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.

If you mean NW organiztion can't report activity in their neighborhoods, that's silly.

On the other hand if you mean NW organizations are possibly pursuing/following/chasing individuals creating situations where unarmed people are getting shot, then ya, they would have to disband.


[/Silly answer to hyperbolic statement.]


>>>>

 

[Peach]

Yes, but if Zimmerman's actions constituted a felony, it's a whole new ballgame. If you kill some one in the course of committing a felony, even accidentally, you've committed murder.

If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.

If you mean NW organiztion can't report activity in their neighborhoods, that's silly.

On the other hand if you mean NW organizations are possibly pursuing/following/chasing individuals creating situations where unarmed people are getting shot, then ya, they would have to disband.


[/Silly answer to hyperbolic statement.]


>>>>

Reporting isn't the problem, shooting someone dead before the police got there WAS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Trayvon's ho didn't say anything about Trayvon saying Zimmerman had a gun. All the evidence is against the hypothetical situation you suggest. However, there is evidence that Trayvon intended to intimidate Zimmerman, and then later assaulted him.

Would that evidence be...

1. When he was near the clubhouse (per Zimmerman's phone description) with the Zimmerman's truck parked between him and his destination (house and location of Zimmerman's truck) so that Martin had to walk toward the truck to continue down the street to where he was staying?

2. Would that evidence be that Martin reached into his pocket to answer an inbound phone call at the exact time that Zimmerman claims he was reaching into his "waistband"? (Based on dispatcher call and phone records.)

3. Or would it be that of the two we have Martin known for running away from the situation (per Zimmerman's account) and Zimmerman running after Martin AFTER Martin began to to leave?​

>>>>

 

[rdean]

There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.

Follow? Or "chase"? Was there an instruction to chase?

There was no "instruction" at all, you dipshit.

Following need not be "instructed." It is lawful, you asshole.

There is no evidence of any "chase," you punk ass dope.

I'm the dope? The tapes have been linked to dozens of times. You can clearly hear Zimmerman getting out of the care and huffing and puffing to catch up to that child who Zimmerman said is running away. It's why he says "they always get away". The police asked if Zimmerman is following that kid and Zimmerman says "yes". When the policeman says, "You don't need to do that", is it the same as "do that"? See? One has "don't" in it and the other doesn't. Which one did the police say?

Go ahead, call me a dope, but you are being "willfully ignorant". No way around that.

 

[rdean]

I even took a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.

From the actual Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook

Funny, that part in bold is the only part Republicans can't see. What they don't believe in, turns invisible and is suddenly not there and never was. So convenient.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.

If you mean NW organiztion can't report activity in their neighborhoods, that's silly.

On the other hand if you mean NW organizations are possibly pursuing/following/chasing individuals creating situations where unarmed people are getting shot, then ya, they would have to disband.


[/Silly answer to hyperbolic statement.]


>>>>

Reporting isn't the problem, shooting someone dead before the police got there WAS.

Shooting someone dead before the police get there is not a problem either if you observed and reported and then were attacked by some unknown individual. On the other hand if you inject yourself into a situation in such a manner as to be considered the aggressor in a felonious manner, then their would be a problem.

At this point we don't have specific evidence for either claim.


>>>>

 

[Meister]

merged