George Zimmerman's bloody head

[JimBowie1958]

<

Ya'll keep this up and someone is going to suggest we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.


....................... Not really my thing.



>>>>

No way.

Who knows where Ravi has had its hands lately?

 

[Supposn]

If you’re confronted by someone with a gun who doesn’t identify themselves a police officer with jurisdiction where you’re legally standing what’s your legal options?

What’s the difference if:

The gun is or isn’t concealed?
The confronter deliberately or accidently permits you see the “concealed” gun?

I’ve been given to understand Zimmerman was carrying a side arm and he followed Martin after police advised him to stand down.
A girl claims she was speaking to Martin on the phone; Martin told her he was being stalked; I’m not certain but I think she claims to have heard the struggle.
Martin’s cell phone and telephone company records indicate Martin’s phone was calling the girl’s phone at the approximate time of the confrontation.

Zimmerman claims that Martin confronted him and during the struggle Martin tried to get the gun. Zimmerman claims to have fired the gun in defense of his life.

I’m considering that due to this Floorida law if Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed, Martin had legal right to kill Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is now in superior condition; Martin certainly cannot be revived to life. But Zimmerman is certainly in a very poor legal position.

Under circumstances that are not extremely extraordinary, this law could leagalize the murder of any armed person who's not a police officer.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you&#8217;re confronted by someone with a gun who doesn&#8217;t identify themselves a police officer with jurisdiction where you&#8217;re legally standing what&#8217;s your legal options?

What&#8217;s the difference if:

The gun is or isn&#8217;t concealed?
The confronter deliberately or accidently permits you see the &#8220;concealed&#8221; gun?

I&#8217;ve been given to understand Zimmerman was carrying a side arm and he followed Martin after police advised him to stand down.
A girl claims she was speaking to Martin on the phone; Martin told her he was being stalked; I&#8217;m not certain but I think she claims to have heard the struggle.
Martin&#8217;s cell phone and telephone company records indicate Martin&#8217;s phone was calling the girl&#8217;s phone at the approximate time of the confrontation.

Zimmerman claims that Martin confronted him and during the struggle Martin tried to get the gun. Zimmerman claims to have fired the gun in defense of his life.

I&#8217;m considering that due to this Floorida law if Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed, Martin had legal right to kill Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is now in superior condition; Martin certainly cannot be revived to life. But Zimmerman is certainly in a very poor legal position.

Under circumstances that are not extremely extraordinary, this law could leagalize the murder of any armed person who's not a police officer.

Respectfully, Supposn

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.)


>>>>

 

[Supposn]

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

1. There is no such thing as legal murder. Are you showing your bias to presume it was murder whether legal or not?

2. GZ does not need the Stand Your Ground law if his testimony and that of coroborating witnesses and the physical evidence as we now have it is not contradicted by strong contrary evidence. All he need appeal to are laws regarding self-defense. If person A starts a fist fight with person B and person B gets on top of person A and starts beating person A mercilessly and not letting person A go when person A gives up, person A is merely defending themselves at that point and can use deadly force.

3. And the evidence as far as we now know it points to Martin initiating the confrontation, not GZ. The only reason GZ was arrested was to placate black mobs in the hopes of avoiding more riots. Is ay **** them and let them riot.

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.

They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.

If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

3. And the evidence as far as we now know it points to Martin initiating the confrontation, not GZ.

Right now there is no evidence that indicates who started the fight.

They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.

If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.

Losing a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.

Under Florida Law 776.012 a person is authorized the use of deadly force if they fear the other person is going to cause their death or great bodily harm - at that point they can use lethal force in self defense, unless that person is the aggressor in which case there are two conditions under which they lose the self defense claim under 776.041. First if they were committing a forcible felony. Secondly if, as measured by a reasonable person they had a opportunity to escape and did not take it and continued with the fight.

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

[DISCLAIMER: Not defending Martin and not trying to say Zimmerman is guilty of anything, simply pointing out that right now claims of "who started the fight" are indicative of bias and not being made on the evidence publicly available.]


>>>>

 

[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.

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.


>>>>

 

[Supposn]

zzz1.
They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.

If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.

Jim Bowie 1158, my message stated “If” a jury believes the girl.

Zimmerman telephoned the police regarding a suspicious character he spotted while driving his car. Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin on foot. The police advised Zimmerman not to continue following Martin.

A girl claims Martin called and during their conversation she heard Martin being confronted.
Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin until Martin came from behind and confronted Zimmerman.

If a jury believes Zimmerman was confronted, he’s less legally, but to some extent still remains legally vulnerable. If the jury believes the girl, Zimmerman is very much more legally vulnerable.

The critical point is if a jury believes the girl or Zimmerman.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

zzz1.
They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.

If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.

Jim Bowie 1158, my message stated “If” a jury believes the girl.

Zimmerman telephoned the police regarding a suspicious character he spotted while driving his car. Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin on foot. The police advised Zimmerman not to continue following Martin.

A girl claims Martin called and during their conversation she heard Martin being confronted.
Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin until Martin came from behind and confronted Zimmerman.

If a jury believes Zimmerman was confronted, he’s less legally, but to some extent still remains legally vulnerable. If the jury believes the girl, Zimmerman is very much more legally vulnerable.

The critical point is if a jury believes the girl or Zimmerman.
Respectfully, Supposn

Just a technical correction, phone records show that Martin did not call the girlfriend. Phone records show that Martin had been on and off the phone with the girlfriend frequently during the day. At approximately 19:11 Zimmerman calls the dispatcher, at approximately 19:12 the girlfriend called Martin which is the phone call that continued to approximately 19:16. It's interesting to note that when you compare time-lines of calls, the girlfriend's inbound phone call would have been arriving right at the time Zimmerman claims Martin reached into his waistband (implying a threatening action).



BTW - It appears (opinion) that T-mobile reception in that area sucks.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely. There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband. It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it. I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely. There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband. It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it. I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.

You can listen to the dispatcher call and the waistband comment occurs just after 1-minuted into the tape. The call is listed as being placed at approximately 19:11, the girlfriends inbound call is about 1 minute later (19:12) which places it at the same time as the waistband comment.

For ease of location you can listen to the audio from the wiki site if you need to confirm.

I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.

What witness has stated the say the initiation of hostilities?

My understanding is that all witness that have come forward and made public statements have indicated that hostilities were already occurring when they first saw the scene of the event.



>>>>

 

[KissMy]

Just for the arguement sake lets just suppose that Zimmerman could have attacked Martin.

Martin should have quit beating Zimmerman after he was down & yelling for help. Just like in the video below when 2 women attacked a guy. Once the women retreated or he took them down he should have stopped the beating. since he did not stop, all 3 of them went to jail. These rules are clearly stated in Florida Statute 776.041.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8y2DMdNpAY"]Severely Beaten After Attacking[/ame]

It is not the "Stand Your Ground Law" that protects Zimmerman if he did start or provoke the confrontation. Martin was beating Zimmerman whom had already been knocked flat on his back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is illegal in any state. Here is the law in Florida. Note: this is not the SYG law.

Florida Statute 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)&#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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just for the arguement sake lets just suppose that Zimmerman could have attacked Martin.

Martin should have quit beating Zimmerman after he was down & yelling for help. Just like in the video below when 2 women attacked a guy. Once the women retreated or he took them down he should have stopped the beating. since he did not stop, all 3 of them went to jail. These rules are clearly stated in Florida Statute 776.041.

Severely Beaten After Attacking

It is not the "Stand Your Ground Law" that protects Zimmerman if he did start or provoke the confrontation. Martin was beating Zimmerman whom had already been knocked flat on his back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is illegal in any state. Here is the law in Florida. Note: this is not the SYG law.

Florida Statute 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)&#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.

That would apply to Martin's actions, maybe, but he's dead so I don't see the relevance.

The question at this point applies to Zimmerman. As you point out in the law, **IF** Zimmerman was shown to be the aggressor HE would not have been justified in using lethal force as he initiated hostilities with a forcible felony or had a chance to escape and failed to use it. The state would have the burden of proof the make that case. On the other hand if evidence were to show Martin was the aggressor, then Zimmerman's self defense immunity remains intact under 776.041 (since he would not have been the aggressor, it wouldn't apply).



>>>>

 

[KissMy]

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

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jagvYIMJyzU"]Beating a subdued man angers crowd[/ame]

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Listening to the audio and since it was a soccer riot can we assume it was a foreign country where laws might be different then Florida?

Secondly, were the police arrested?


>>>>

 

[KissMy]

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

Listening to the audio and since it was a soccer riot can we assume it was a foreign country where laws might be different then Florida?

Secondly, were the police arrested?

Beating a subdued person is reprehensible in most civilized societies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Listening to the audio and since it was a soccer riot can we assume it was a foreign country where laws might be different then Florida?

Secondly, were the police arrested?

Beating a subdued person is reprehensible in most civilized societies.

True. But was Zimmerman subdued or was he continuing to struggle? Was Zimmerman clinging to Martin attempting to prevent him from escaping? At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fire.

We don't know that was the case here. If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was fully justified in his actions. On the other hand if Zimmerman attacked Martin then Martin was fully justified in defending himself. During the struggle if Zimmerman and Martin dragged each other to the ground then Martin was fully justified in defending himself - including hitting Zimmerman's head against the ground - in an attempt to render him unconscious so that Martin could escape.

You appear to be making assumptions about a struggle that no witness has come forward to indicate they saw started it or how it progressed. You appear to be trying to justify actions based on the outcome, not how a certain situation evolved.

As I said Martin may have attacked Zimmerman, in which case Zimmerman was totally justified in his actions. However if Zimmerman threatened Martin and or initiated hostilities (which is assault) and Zimmerman either displayed the gun (in hand or in the holster) or if during the struggle on the ground Zimmerman clung to Martin preventing his escape - then Martin was totally justified in attempting to knock Zimmerman unconscious impacting his head on the ground.


Are you saying that if someone jumps me and they have a holstered weapon and I see it (or feel it during a struggle), then I have to stop defending myself if we are in close combat or can I attempt to prevent them from shooting me?


>>>>

 

[KissMy]

At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fire.

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 said there was no flash when she heard it. She said there were multiple shots fired. She contradicts every statements she makes. She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!

 

[paperview]

To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely. There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband. It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it. I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.

Gee...it's like you never even heard Z's not911 call.

He said it in the first minute.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is still going

sorry..........