George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Ravi]

We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.

True

We do know that Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him, making him the aggressor.

False.

The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

 

[dilloduck]

We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.

True



False.

The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

What kind of ego trip are you on----GZ profiled Martin because you say he did? Sorry toots but it requires proof.

 

[Ravi]

True



False.



He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

What kind of ego trip are you on----GZ profiled Martin because you say he did? Sorry toots but it requires proof.

Did you listen to the 911 tape....if so, why then did he call 911 and report Martin if he hadn't profiled him?

 

[dilloduck]

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

What kind of ego trip are you on----GZ profiled Martin because you say he did? Sorry toots but it requires proof.

Did you listen to the 911 tape....if so, why then did he call 911 and report Martin if he hadn't profiled him?

ok--I see your little trick. Your claiming he profiled him as someone suspicious. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
You're a sly one.
Aggressor ? Na--you're still a loony bird on that one.

 

[Ravi]

What kind of ego trip are you on----GZ profiled Martin because you say he did? Sorry toots but it requires proof.

Did you listen to the 911 tape....if so, why then did he call 911 and report Martin if he hadn't profiled him?

ok--I see your little trick. Your claiming he profiled him as someone suspicious. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
You're a sly one.
Aggressor ? Na--you're still a loony bird on that one.

Wow, are you full of assumptions, or what? IMO, he saw a black kid and thought he was suspicious. You can make the point that he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black, but because he was walking around in the rain chatting on his cell phone (though knowing teens, that is NOT suspicious behavior, but very normal behavior).

And yes, he profiled Martin and called 911. Why does that upset you so?

 

[dilloduck]

Did you listen to the 911 tape....if so, why then did he call 911 and report Martin if he hadn't profiled him?

ok--I see your little trick. Your claiming he profiled him as someone suspicious. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
You're a sly one.
Aggressor ? Na--you're still a loony bird on that one.

Wow, are you full of assumptions, or what? IMO, he saw a black kid and thought he was suspicious. You can make the point that he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black, but because he was walking around in the rain chatting on his cell phone (though knowing teens, that is NOT suspicious behavior, but very normal behavior).

And yes, he profiled Martin and called 911. Why does that upset you so?

Never mind---I gave you far too much credit. Mani is going mock me now, dammit.

 

[Liability]

We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.

True



False.

The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

Naturally Ravi misuses the term "profiling." Having had it noted that the term doesn't apply to a private citizen, she tosses it out there anyway,

We also don't know that Zimmerman DID anything of the kind even if the term did apply to private citizens.

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin. Zimmerman was allowed to call 9-1-1. No liberal "leave" required.

And we also don't know that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Martin may have been. Ravi sure doesn't know, but she's not honest enough to admit that fact.

There is nothing wrong with the whole incident getting scrutinized.

 

[Ravi]

ok--I see your little trick. Your claiming he profiled him as someone suspicious. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
You're a sly one.
Aggressor ? Na--you're still a loony bird on that one.

Wow, are you full of assumptions, or what? IMO, he saw a black kid and thought he was suspicious. You can make the point that he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black, but because he was walking around in the rain chatting on his cell phone (though knowing teens, that is NOT suspicious behavior, but very normal behavior).

And yes, he profiled Martin and called 911. Why does that upset you so?

Never mind---I gave you far too much credit. Mani is going mock me now, dammit.

I'm sorry that manifold is able to make you avoid questions with his bullshit allegations.

But not surprised.

Ciao.

 

[Liability]

Wow, are you full of assumptions, or what? IMO, he saw a black kid and thought he was suspicious. You can make the point that he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black, but because he was walking around in the rain chatting on his cell phone (though knowing teens, that is NOT suspicious behavior, but very normal behavior).

And yes, he profiled Martin and called 911. Why does that upset you so?

Never mind---I gave you far too much credit. Mani is going mock me now, dammit.

I'm sorry that manifold is able to make you avoid questions with his bullshit allegations.

But not surprised.

Ciao.

What you should be sorry about is that you are a tool; a dishonest tool.

 

[Ravi]

True



False.



He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

Naturally Ravi misuses the term "profiling." Having had it noted that the term doesn't apply to a private citizen, she tosses it out there anyway,

We also don't know that Zimmerman DID anything of the kind even if the term did apply to private citizens.

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin. Zimmerman was allowed to call 9-1-1. No liberal "leave" required.

And we also don't know that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Martin may have been. Ravi sure doesn't know, but she's not honest enough to admit that fact.

There is nothing wrong with the whole incident getting scrutinized.

Huh, private citizens can't profile? Why, is it against the law?

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin and was allowed to call 911. None of that means he didn't profile Martin.

Maybe you can explain why he called 911 without profiling Martin, but I doubt it.

 

[Ravi]

Never mind---I gave you far too much credit. Mani is going mock me now, dammit.

I'm sorry that manifold is able to make you avoid questions with his bullshit allegations.

But not surprised.

Ciao.

What you should be sorry about is that you are a tool; a dishonest tool.

For someone that pretends to be intelligent, you made bad use of a semi-colon. Idiot.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry that manifold is able to make you avoid questions with his bullshit allegations.

But not surprised.

Ciao.

What you should be sorry about is that you are a tool; a dishonest tool.

For someone that pretends to be intelligent, you made bad use of a semi-colon. Idiot.

Your pathetic deflection attempt is noted.

But, unlike you, I don't pretend.

And unlike you, I don't rely on dishonesty, you lying loser.

 

[Liability]

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

Naturally Ravi misuses the term "profiling." Having had it noted that the term doesn't apply to a private citizen, she tosses it out there anyway,

We also don't know that Zimmerman DID anything of the kind even if the term did apply to private citizens.

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin. Zimmerman was allowed to call 9-1-1. No liberal "leave" required.

And we also don't know that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Martin may have been. Ravi sure doesn't know, but she's not honest enough to admit that fact.

There is nothing wrong with the whole incident getting scrutinized.

Huh, private citizens can't profile? Why, is it against the law?

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin and was allowed to call 911. None of that means he didn't profile Martin.

Maybe you can explain why he called 911 without profiling Martin, but I doubt it.

You need to understand that words have meaning, you imbecile.

 

[Bigfoot]

We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).

Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.

And screw your hag, Angela Corey who is doing your evil racist bidding.

Hmmmm....and yet these horrible wounds did not even require a BandAid as witnessed from the police video when Zimmerman was taken out of the squad car. Nor a doctor's attention. In fact, the second EMS vehicle called, which was designated for Zimmerman, turned around, too.

I shot a S&W 686 revolver once. It was the first time I had ever fired a gun. The recoil knocked me back against a fence and I had a nasty bruise on my back. Sorry it didn't bleed in order to convince you Neanderthals that something besides my own actions caused the problem. I suspect the superficial cuts on the back of Zimmerman's hairless head were due to similar circumstances.

I thought of that also. I know a man who had it happen, he had a concussion though.

Heh, that is the stupidest scenario yet. LOL, you guys are killing me with this crap!

 

[WorldWatcher]

If, in fact, you never claimed that, then you are repeating yourself by saying it is a strawman, and then asserting that you never said it.

Except the fact is that I have pointed out in this thread and in multiple threads on this board **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony then he would not qualify under Florida Law 776.041 for self defense immunity. AND that the state would have to supply evidence to prove it or that Zimmerman should be found not quilty for lack of evidence.

Repeated numerous times. And for those that have paid attention I'm very careful to qualify the description of such a scenario as unknown and one the state would have to prove.




You do understand what a "forcible felony" is right?

Forcibile Felony includes such things as aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping and unlawful detention, rape, murder, etc.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing simple assault he would still be able to claim self defense as simple assault is a misdemeanor. On the other hand if Zimmerman was committing assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, then that is a forcible felony.

I never said that Zimmerman couldn't claim self defense simply on the basis of (possibly) being the aggressor, however Zimmerman would loose his self defense immunity **IF** the state were to prove he was committing a forcible felony.

All true under Florida Statute 776.041.

when you insisted on doubling down, and then tried to throw in a strawman, and beat the crap out of it, I took the same strawman you used, and proceeded to mock you further with it. In none of that did I contradict anything, other than your argument.

Actually, your mocking you look bad since I've tried to maintain high standards of conduct.

**IF** the state tries to negate self defense, they will have to rely on the provisions of 776.041 and ONE of the two possible disqualifying factors is if the person is committing a forcible felony.

[DISCLAIMER: Not saying Zimmerman did commit one as no evidence has come out to support that possible scenario and lacking evidence the state would have a hard time making it stick.)


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

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.


>>>>

Except for the fact that, again, you have the law wrong.

The only fracking way they could allege Zimmerman was involved in a felony at the time of the assault is if they charge him with it now, not later. No one is charging him anything that is not a direct result of the assault, therefore the law you dancing with is irrelevant.

As I said, you really are one of the dumb ones.

Charges can be amended prior to discovery and the immunity hearing and preliminary hearings.

Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin. I don't think that will work very well for a Murder 2 charge also, but we'll have to see what they bring forth. Look's like O'Mara is pretty competent.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.

True



False.

The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.

He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.

How do individuals profile?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except the fact is that I have pointed out in this thread and in multiple threads on this board **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony then he would not qualify under Florida Law 776.041 for self defense immunity. AND that the state would have to supply evidence to prove it or that Zimmerman should be found not quilty for lack of evidence.

Repeated numerous times. And for those that have paid attention I'm very careful to qualify the description of such a scenario as unknown and one the state would have to prove.




You do understand what a "forcible felony" is right?

Forcibile Felony includes such things as aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping and unlawful detention, rape, murder, etc.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing simple assault he would still be able to claim self defense as simple assault is a misdemeanor. On the other hand if Zimmerman was committing assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, then that is a forcible felony.

I never said that Zimmerman couldn't claim self defense simply on the basis of (possibly) being the aggressor, however Zimmerman would loose his self defense immunity **IF** the state were to prove he was committing a forcible felony.

All true under Florida Statute 776.041.




Actually, your mocking you look bad since I've tried to maintain high standards of conduct.

**IF** the state tries to negate self defense, they will have to rely on the provisions of 776.041 and ONE of the two possible disqualifying factors is if the person is committing a forcible felony.

[DISCLAIMER: Not saying Zimmerman did commit one as no evidence has come out to support that possible scenario and lacking evidence the state would have a hard time making it stick.)


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

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.


>>>>

Except for the fact that, again, you have the law wrong.

The only fracking way they could allege Zimmerman was involved in a felony at the time of the assault is if they charge him with it now, not later. No one is charging him anything that is not a direct result of the assault, therefore the law you dancing with is irrelevant.

As I said, you really are one of the dumb ones.

Charges can be amended prior to discovery and the immunity hearing and preliminary hearings.

Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin. I don't think that will work very well for a Murder 2 charge also, but we'll have to see what they bring forth. Look's like O'Mara is pretty competent.


>>>>

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

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads Merged.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's another media hound, just on the other side of the fence. I see blood on the head, perhaps a bruise, no "gashes". Zimmerman da*n sure healed quicker than Martin.............

Unbelievable you don't care about the truth or the facts, you have decided what happened and you want vengeance. Quick now make another post where you claim you just want justice.

INCORRECT, I want Sharpton, the NBP, and Dershowitz type "commentators" OUT of it. Dershowitz discussing prosecution 'errors' in public might land HIM in hot water. Is he licensed in Florida?

I don't think even Florida requires a license to express an opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except for the fact that, again, you have the law wrong.

The only fracking way they could allege Zimmerman was involved in a felony at the time of the assault is if they charge him with it now, not later. No one is charging him anything that is not a direct result of the assault, therefore the law you dancing with is irrelevant.

As I said, you really are one of the dumb ones.

Charges can be amended prior to discovery and the immunity hearing and preliminary hearings.

Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin. I don't think that will work very well for a Murder 2 charge also, but we'll have to see what they bring forth. Look's like O'Mara is pretty competent.


>>>>

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

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

still missing the point. If it worked the way you think...

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

...they would charge him with murder...

They did charge him with murder.

...they wouldn't need a trial because the murder charge would prove he was not defending himself.

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

Since the law doesn't work that way in this country, they would have to prove that, in addition to being in a fight, he was also robbing the 7-11 where Martin got the Skittles.

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

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

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

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


>>>>