George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Hate to break it to you but "self defense" is a legal term not a medical term. Whether Zimmerman was authorized the use of self defense is based on the law not based on a cut on the head.

**IF** Martin initiated hostilities, and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.

**IF** Zimmerman initiated hostilities with simple assault, and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.

**IF** Martin initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention), and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can not claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.



It will be the states responsibility to present such evidence as it has. If they can't show Zimmerman committing a forcible felony then it's unlikely they can prove their charge.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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



They did charge him with murder.



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

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.


>>>>

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

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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



Irrelevant material deleted.


>>>>

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

UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.

Good luck. The idiots who maintain Zimmerman should have not defended himself because he was *just* getting his head bashed have shown repeatedly their ignorance, willful and otherwise, of the realities of physical altercations and head trauma (as well as law, due process, and just about every other topic they've ever blathered about).

It was pointed out from the beginning that the potential for serious injury and even death exists when it comes to getting one's head hit, even if there are NO VISIBLE INJURIES AT ALL. They don't care. And they aren't interested in learning.

 

[Bigfoot]

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

These guys post's keep getting dumber. You remind me of that black ***** that claimed Martin was hunted down like a rabid dog.

 

[bucs90]

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

UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

Thus, in this criminal court, ONLY incident #2 will be used to determine guilt. Just like in a bar, if a guy calls your GF a slut, and walks away, then you pursue him.....and a fight ensues.....and you kill him..........they'll find you guilty, even if he was rude to you and your date.

YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY PROFILED YOU.

Thats the case in a nutshell.

Zimmerman probably deserved to get his nose busted too. I agree with that. He probably deserved a good ass kicking, as he was overzealous, and he was charged with assaulting a cop in the past (And I"m extremely pro-police). This guy has needed a good foot in the ass for a while, and Trayvon was giving it to him.

BUT....at some point, we all must show self control. Even when we punch the guy who calls our GF a slut.

And at some point, as men, we all have been in a good old fashioned fist fight. But at some point, we must realize when we cross the line into "Oh shit I could hurt/kill this guy".

And bouncing the back of his head off pavement is PAST THAT LINE.

At that point, the other guy has a right to not die during the fight and can use force. Zimmerman did just that.

This is an ugly, disgusting case.

But Zimmerman will be not guilty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>


Neighborhood watch shooter released from Fla. jail | Fox News


Zimmerman is out of jail on bond.


>>>>

As he should be.

Given the evidence we now have, he never should have been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder in the first place. If the prosecutor doesnt have a serious bomb in terms of evidence, she is wasting the tax payers dollar and everyones time with this.

Why on Earth didnt she go with manslaughter? That would have had a chance to stick, though I would disagree that that happened either.

Why are the libs trying to criminalize self-defense?

Prosecutors always try to criminalize self defense. They prefer that people run away and call the police because it gives the state more power.

 

[Truthmatters]

if your stalker kills you while you are trying to protect yourself against him than its OK for him to kill you?

why was it OK for Zimmerman to kill someone he was stalking if that person tried to defend themselves?

BTW you have no proof Trayvon was doing anything but walking home from the store with some want to be cop started stalking him.

 

[Truthmatters]

You people really dont think black people have any rights do you?

 

[koshergrl]

It's not okay for you to track a stalker down and kill him.

In fact, it's not okay to kill a stalker for stalking you.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't take much for a head wound to bleed like crazy.

All it proves is Zimmerman got more of a fight than he expected. Doesn't prove who was acting in self defense

It proves:

Zimmerans skull was back up against a hard surface while being struck in the front. The lacerations on the back of the head prove that. OR he was struck in the back of the head.

Now, I think it's safe to say a prolonged struggle/fight happened. And at some point, Zman's head was laying on the concrete getting hit in the front.

Which, as I showed and provided a perfect mainstream example, is medically sound in arguing lethal self defense.

If a cop had a guy mounted on top of him, punching him and bouncing his skull off pavement, would the cop be justified in shooting? 100%, absolutely, in every single court in America.

Zman has a lower standard than a cop.

Not guilty.

His head could have hit the sidewalk while they were wrestling.

It is not self defense if you start the fight. I think he will get off....all it takes is one juror

 

[Conservative]

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

UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.

Good luck. The idiots who maintain Zimmerman should have not defended himself because he was *just* getting his head bashed have shown repeatedly their ignorance, willful and otherwise, of the realities of physical altercations and head trauma (as well as law, due process, and just about every other topic they've ever blathered about).

It was pointed out from the beginning that the potential for serious injury and even death exists when it comes to getting one's head hit, even if there are NO VISIBLE INJURIES AT ALL. They don't care. And they aren't interested in learning.

And how do you know Trayvon was not simply defending himself, after a gun was drawn ob him? You don't.

Neither do I.

That's why they have these things called trials.

 

[Truthmatters]

then why did you not want an arrest and a trial in the past?

 

[FuelRod]

Since these photos have gone mainstream it is safe to assume authenticity.
The murder charge needs to be dropped to save embarassment of an acquital and save the country's ghetto's from the subsequent rioting.
For those unfamiliar with the US Justice System, prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the other way around. An injury at the time of the incident with Martin is all it takes to create that he was acting in some kind of self defense..which takes murder out of play.
A manslaughter charge and put this "stand your ground" law on trial? Go for it.

 

[Conservative]

You people really dont think black people have any rights do you?

Oh, just shut the **** up why don't you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

Under Florida Law (See below), drawing a firearm (even without the intent to kill) can be construed as a threat rising to the level of Aggravated Assault. A felony. Under Florida Statute 776.041 Aggravated Assault negates the self defense claim.

Supporters for Zimmerman better hope there is no proof Zimmerman drew his weapon and used it to threaten Martin.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as​

784.021 - Aggravated assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

Who said I did?

My point is that it's not okay to kill your stalker.

 

[bucs90]

It was pointed out from the beginning that the potential for serious injury and even death exists when it comes to getting one's head hit, even if there are NO VISIBLE INJURIES AT ALL. They don't care. And they aren't interested in learning.

Comment of the day.

These idiot liberals, like you said, just dont get that. Most of them have never been in a fist fight in their lives anyway. And they wont listen to my UFC example, all though that is the perfect display of medical sense in a fist fight to use. UFC guys get knocked OUT cold all the time, with their heads bashing off the mat. No marks. See them after the fight, after being knocked OUT, and they could take a wedding picture. No cuts. No bruises. These idiot libs dont understand the anatomy of a knockout shot to the head.

But every month, the UFC shows how a man can be knocked out...without marks. And they show why it is DEADLY to allow a brain to be bounced off a padded canvas....much less concrete...which is why they stop the fights then.

Zman had no ref. And Trayvon wasn't fighting a sport.

Not guilty.

 

[koshergrl]

then why did you not want an arrest and a trial in the past?

Are you ******* overmedicated? Or perhaps abusing your meds?

If so, please stop. Or find another hobby, because your weird, convoluted and retarded posts are painful for people of normal intelligence to wade through.

 

[konradv]

who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.

Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn? I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!

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

He had a gun, he thought the person was suspicious. What else are we supposed to think? I certainly would have it drawn in that situation. To do otherwise doesn't make sense.

 

[koshergrl]

Comment of the day.

These idiot liberals, like you said, just dont get that. Most of them have never been in a fist fight in their lives anyway. And they wont listen to my UFC example, all though that is the perfect display of medical sense in a fist fight to use. UFC guys get knocked OUT cold all the time, with their heads bashing off the mat. No marks. See them after the fight, after being knocked OUT, and they could take a wedding picture. No cuts. No bruises. These idiot libs dont understand the anatomy of a knockout shot to the head.

But every month, the UFC shows how a man can be knocked out...without marks. And they show why it is DEADLY to allow a brain to be bounced off a padded canvas....much less concrete...which is why they stop the fights then.

Zman had no ref. And Trayvon wasn't fighting a sport.

Not guilty.

Peach didn't say that.

I did.