Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

Question not just for you, but for anyone that is belittling Z's injuries:

What are you putting the probability of being put into a coma or dying when having the back of your head being slammed against concrete? Consider it Russian roulette, how many chances do you want?

Actually slammed into the concrete or more like what probably happened with Zimmerman? An actual slam of the head is a one shot deal like a swing of a baseball bat. Don't think that's ever really been a question has it? Oh, and to be clear, I am not "belittling" Zimmerman's injuries, just saying they aren't as severe as you're claiming they are.

Tell me why there are severe penalties for direct punches to the back of someone's head in any fighting format?

Tell me if anyone has ever been put into a coma or died from one punch to the back of the head?

One smack to the back of the head via concrete in itself can be a life threatening injury. This isn't a case of if he died then it could have been life threatening and if he lived it obviously couldn't have been life threatening.

 

[Mr.Pack]

The other thing I wonder about with the fight scenario is if George heard that 911 was being called, why didn't he just try to protect himself until the cops arrived? His injuries weren't life threatening to the point where he shot Trayvon, couldn't he have just continued to protect himself and keep screaming while he waited a few minutes for the police to arrive? Actually I know the answer to this is that no one would count on the police arriving in a timely manner, but it is something to consider. Also, did Good testify whether he could see George doing anything to protect himself? If his arms weren't pinned down by Trayvon, wouldn't he try to punch/gouge Trayvon, or cover his own head to protect against the punches from Trayvon? If the prosecution didn't ask Good about this it was a mistake.

Have you ever had someone mount you and apply their body weight against your broken nose as they try to suffocate you to death?People keep coming into the thread assuming the injuries Zimmerman had sustained up to that point HAD to be life threatening injuries, i.e. Zimmerman had to be on the verge of dying. This has been pointed out countless times as being wrong, that is not required in order to claim self-defense in order to be justified in using deadly force. Zimmerman did not need a scratch on him to support claiming self defense.

You're mischaracterizing the argument. It's absolutely true that Zimmerman could have a great self defense claim in the absence of any injuries. If Martin had pulled at a butcher's knife and had advanced on Zimmerman, that would be a great case where there's a reasonable fear of great bodily harm without any injuries.

The argument is that the totality of facts and circumstances, including the fact that Martin was unarmed and that Zimmerman did not, in fact, sustain major injuries, supports the conclusion that a reasonably prudent and careful person probably would not have feared such injuries.

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.

Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.

I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

Yet the jury is still away from their families. I know that you and the rest of the sheep were given this talking point a long time ago, but no matter how many times it is repeated it will only be true to believers. The case for manslaughter has really come down to the jury instructions and how they interpret them. The odds for a conviction are much higher that your 100-1 nonsense as evident that the jury hasn't gone home.

You have had a few good post in this thread where there was some hope for you that you were capable of some independent thought, had some ability to retain and even analyze real information, etc. Then you slipped back to this. Why?

 

[3C's]

The other thing I wonder about with the fight scenario is if George heard that 911 was being called, why didn't he just try to protect himself until the cops arrived? His injuries weren't life threatening to the point where he shot Trayvon, couldn't he have just continued to protect himself and keep screaming while he waited a few minutes for the police to arrive? Actually I know the answer to this is that no one would count on the police arriving in a timely manner, but it is something to consider. Also, did Good testify whether he could see George doing anything to protect himself? If his arms weren't pinned down by Trayvon, wouldn't he try to punch/gouge Trayvon, or cover his own head to protect against the punches from Trayvon? If the prosecution didn't ask Good about this it was a mistake.

Have you ever had someone mount you and apply their body weight against your broken nose as they try to suffocate you to death?People keep coming into the thread assuming the injuries Zimmerman had sustained up to that point HAD to be life threatening injuries, i.e. Zimmerman had to be on the verge of dying. This has been pointed out countless times as being wrong, that is not required in order to claim self-defense in order to be justified in using deadly force. Zimmerman did not need a scratch on him to support claiming self defense.

You're mischaracterizing the argument. It's absolutely true that Zimmerman could have a great self defense claim in the absence of any injuries. If Martin had pulled at a butcher's knife and had advanced on Zimmerman, that would be a great case where there's a reasonable fear of great bodily harm without any injuries.

The argument is that the totality of facts and circumstances, including the fact that Martin was unarmed and that Zimmerman did not, in fact, sustain major injuries, supports the conclusion that a reasonably prudent and careful person probably would not have feared such injuries.

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.

Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.

I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

No surgeries but he did have a wicked bandaid on his head.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You do not have the right to be a vigilante and take the law into your own hands by passing a death sentence if your life isn't in danger.

Agreed and there is no evidence of that.

That's determined subjective and objectively. If, however, your actions are the cause of the fight through instigation or action whether verbal or physical, you have a higher duty to not escalate things if your aggression backfires in your face.

Again, where's the evidence of any of these what if's?

Trayvon could and should have felt threatened by somebody following him and then being in a position where you're confronting each other.

He had 4 minutes to run home, if you think he felt threatened, and based on your first quote above, don't you agree he should have just went home? Let's not play the "What If" game.

I think GZ grabbed at him after trayvon started to turn away from him when being questioned or something (that's the bump on the headset that's heard) and then trayvon punches him unexpectedly in the face. GZ is a #####, panicked and embarrassed and once he can reach his gun when trayvon is starting to try to get off of him, he shoots him.

Ok, show me the evidence to support this narrative.

You can't shoot somebody because you simply lost or were losing a fight

If you are on the receiving end of a fight where there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, yes you can.

, especially if your actions were a root cause. Special circumstances must exist for use of deadly force or escalating a situation, otherwise we'd live in a vigilante society.

Evidence?Your entire post is fictional hyperbole, it is not based on any evidence and your emotion is misplaced.

 

[jon_mx]

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

Yet the jury is still away from their families. I know that you and the rest of the sheep were given this talking point a long time ago, but no matter how many times it is repeated it will only be true to believers. The case for manslaughter has really come down to the jury instructions and how they interpret them. The odds for a conviction are much higher that your 100-1 nonsense as evident that the jury hasn't gone home.

You have had a few good post in this thread where there was some hope for you that you were capable of some independent thought, had some ability to retain and even analyze real information, etc. Then you slipped back to this. Why?

Talking points?

Who the hell you think I listen to? I haven't listened to one minute of talking heads on talk radio or foxnews in a year. The only thing I have seen are the idiots on HLN or CNN between court coverage.

 

[The Commish]

Question not just for you, but for anyone that is belittling Z's injuries:

What are you putting the probability of being put into a coma or dying when having the back of your head being slammed against concrete? Consider it Russian roulette, how many chances do you want?

Actually slammed into the concrete or more like what probably happened with Zimmerman? An actual slam of the head is a one shot deal like a swing of a baseball bat. Don't think that's ever really been a question has it? Oh, and to be clear, I am not "belittling" Zimmerman's injuries, just saying they aren't as severe as you're claiming they are.

Tell me why there are severe penalties for direct punches to the back of someone's head in any fighting format?

Tell me if anyone has ever been put into a coma or died from one punch to the back of the head?

One smack to the back of the head via concrete in itself can be a life threatening injury. This isn't a case of if he died then it could have been life threatening and if he lived it obviously couldn't have been life threatening.

Damn....didn't realize who I was responding to

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

Yet the jury is still away from their families. I know that you and the rest of the sheep were given this talking point a long time ago, but no matter how many times it is repeated it will only be true to believers. The case for manslaughter has really come down to the jury instructions and how they interpret them. The odds for a conviction are much higher that your 100-1 nonsense as evident that the jury hasn't gone home.

You have had a few good post in this thread where there was some hope for you that you were capable of some independent thought, had some ability to retain and even analyze real information, etc. Then you slipped back to this. Why?

Talking points?

Who the hell you think I listen to? I haven't listened to one minute of talking heads on talk radio or foxnews in a year. The only thing I have seen are the idiots on HLN or CNN between court coverage.

So? Zimmerman was charged 15 months ago. Or 8 burglaries ago.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

 

[ATC1]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

There is a reason minors and felons can not own a weapon and there are higher restrictions to be able to carry.

 

[3C's]

Prosecution smiling

Defense stern/serious

 

[3C's]

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

Yet the jury is still away from their families. I know that you and the rest of the sheep were given this talking point a long time ago, but no matter how many times it is repeated it will only be true to believers. The case for manslaughter has really come down to the jury instructions and how they interpret them. The odds for a conviction are much higher that your 100-1 nonsense as evident that the jury hasn't gone home.

You have had a few good post in this thread where there was some hope for you that you were capable of some independent thought, had some ability to retain and even analyze real information, etc. Then you slipped back to this. Why?

Talking points?

Who the hell you think I listen to? I haven't listened to one minute of talking heads on talk radio or foxnews in a year. The only thing I have seen are the idiots on HLN or CNN between court coverage.

Which CNN "idiots" would you be referring to? The panelists they've had on have shown great knowledge, considering they're almost all lawyers (prosecution and defense) and at least one was a judge.

 

[ATC1]

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.
Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.

I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

There were no life threatening injuries. But, I'm sure you knew you did not have to sustain life threatening injuries to claim self defense, right?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

The line apparently is when you feel as if your life is being threatened. Who are you to decide how Zim felt at that time?

 

[DiStefano]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

Under normal circumstances, a quick verdict is usually acquittal. But this is an all woman jury...they're going to want to talk about their feelings.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

No ones.

 

[Mr.Pack]

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.
Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.

I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

There were no life threatening injuries. But, I'm sure you knew you did not have to sustain life threatening injuries to claim self defense, right?

True, but if you take someones life, I would think having life threatening injuries would only bolster your case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

From previous case I believe that it has been stated that the "conventional wisdom" is that it takes longer for a conviction. And from those previous cases there were those that know (lawyers and judges) that will tell you that "conventional wisdom" doesn't know what it is talking about as it tells you nothing.

 

[RCon]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

CNN

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

The line apparently is when you feel as if your life is being threatened. Who are you to decide how Zim felt at that time?

The line is when a reasonably prudent person fears imminent death or bodily harm. Not whether you personally just felt threatened in some manner.

 

[greenroom]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

CNN

FOX News, CNBC, HLN .. last night it was all Zimmerman on all of the news channels. good luck finding actual news

 

[jamny]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Something just struck me from listening to the closing argument. Zimmerman's lawyer's speech patterns and mannerism are pretty wimpish. It seems like if I was Zimmerman claiming that a reasonable person would agree with my judgment to pull the gun and use it I'd want a tougher sounding lawyer.

 

[3C's]

Who does it appear to benefit the longer the jury deliberates?

CNN

FOX News, CNBC, HLN .. last night it was all Zimmerman on all of the news channels. good luck finding actual news

It's actually better than the latest GOP "scandal" though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

How about just reading JoJo's posts?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

The line apparently is when you feel as if your life is being threatened. Who are you to decide how Zim felt at that time?

The line is when a reasonably prudent person fears imminent death or bodily harm. Not whether you personally just felt threatened in some manner.

It fits both definitions as I understand it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Something just struck me from listening to the closing argument. Zimmerman's lawyer's speech patterns and mannerism are pretty wimpish. It seems like if I was Zimmerman claiming that a reasonable person would agree with my judgment to pull the gun and use it I'd want a tougher sounding lawyer.

im thinking the wimpier the better...''that poor little fat man MUST have been soooo scared he just HAD to shoot that big bad black boy''

 

[jonessed]

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.

Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

There were no life threatening injuries. But, I'm sure you knew you did not have to sustain life threatening injuries to claim self defense, right?

This whole thought process is bizarre. If you wait until you have sustained life threatening injuries to react, you waited too long.

If someone is on top of me raining punches I'm not going to wait until I feel my orbital socket cave in or my skull crack to react. A broken nose and a few head smashes to the concrete would certainly be enough for me to feel an imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

Is that what happened here? Since it wasn't just a punch in the face, why make such an emotionally charged argument that has nothing to do with the facts of the case? When Zimmerman was on his back he was not given a means to flee, when he yelled for help and two neighbors came to his aid he expressed that he did not want to fight and he wanted the assault to stop. The fact that nobody physically stopped the beating and Martin showed no signs of stopping it is reasonable for him to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. The law is pretty specific here, why are you having such a hard time comprehending it?

 

[ATC1]

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.
Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.

I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

There were no life threatening injuries. But, I'm sure you knew you did not have to sustain life threatening injuries to claim self defense, right?

True, but if you take someones life, I would think having life threatening injuries would only bolster your case.

IT certainly would, but I wouldn't let the attack get that far out of fear for my life.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

 

[Rayderr]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

 

[timschochet]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

Is that what happened here? Since it wasn't just a punch in the face, why make such an emotionally charged argument that has nothing to do with the facts of the case? When Zimmerman was on his back he was not given a means to flee, when he yelled for help and two neighbors came to his aid he expressed that he did not want to fight and he wanted the assault to stop. The fact that nobody physically stopped the beating and Martin showed no signs of stopping it is reasonable for him to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. The law is pretty specific here, why are you having such a hard time comprehending it?

He's not. A big chunk of your interpretation of events is based on Zimmermans narrative and there is no evidence to support it. We don't know how long GZ was on his back. We don't know whether he had the means to flee. We don't know if he was screaming for help. But we DO know, based on expert testimony, that his injuries were minor. Based on that, it is more unlikely than not that he actually feared for his life.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

i think when they look at you funny and take a step towards you...

like the part of the trial when the expert witness mentioned there didn't necessarily have to be significant injuries to back up claim of imminent fear of serious injury or death, and after lawyer said you shouldn't wait until you were badly injured or dead, which got a laugh from some observers in court and chortle from zimmerman (a real rib tickler for him)...

in ANY fight situation, a hypothetically MMA trained fighter could pick you up and slam you on your head on ground, maybe paralyzing or killing you... you can't KNOW that won't happen (like zimmerman)... so it sounds like in florida, shoot first and sort it out later (sarcasm)?

especially if there aren't wintnesses the whole time.

 

[jamny]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

 

[timschochet]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

The entire fight, from start to finish, lasted 42 seconds. That's hardly "no signs of stopping". Of those 42 seconds, Martin may have been on top of Zimmerman 5 seconds, who knows? Zimmerman certainly wasn't being straddled as he claims, or he would not have been able to reach for his gun, pull it out, and kill Martin. And his lack of anything but minor injuries tells me that this entire scenario is a fabrication.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

Is the back of my head hitting concrete? Absolutely.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

If only Softboy had just curled up into a nice round ball of fat (fetal position) im willing to lay any odds that treyvon would have just stopped fighting and walked away .

 

[jamny]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

Is that what happened here? Since it wasn't just a punch in the face, why make such an emotionally charged argument that has nothing to do with the facts of the case? When Zimmerman was on his back he was not given a means to flee, when he yelled for help and two neighbors came to his aid he expressed that he did not want to fight and he wanted the assault to stop. The fact that nobody physically stopped the beating and Martin showed no signs of stopping it is reasonable for him to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. The law is pretty specific here, why are you having such a hard time comprehending it?

He's not. A big chunk of your interpretation of events is based on Zimmermans narrative and there is no evidence to support it. We don't know how long GZ was on his back. We don't know whether he had the means to flee. We don't know if he was screaming for help. But we DO know, based on expert testimony, that his injuries were minor. Based on that, it is more unlikely than not that he actually feared for his life.

Look, I think GZ has to be found not guilty here. Nothing to prove that he wasn't in fear of great bodily harm. No one knows who started the confrontation except GZ.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

No I am not. The argument is: if Zimmerman didn't have life threatening injuries why was his use of deadly force justified as posted by roarlions, you purposefully cut out the post I was replying to. I've added it back in and bolded it for emphasis. You have a habit in this thread of moving the goal posts and quite frankly it is irritating. Your last line is a red herring, one in which you are leaving out vital facts of this case leading to a false conclusion.

Not really following this trial, but this is the first I've heard that he had life threatening injuries. How long was he in the hospital? Life support at all? Surgeries?

If this is true, I can see the self defense argument.

Would you feel the same way if this was your daughter? What limits are you establishing for your family, dad?

So the answer is no to everything I asked?

I don't get what your question has to do with my question.

Please don't act ignorant you know exactly what what was implied by your post. That you don't "get it" is your answer.I would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess my question didn't fit your side. Sorry.

Maybe someone sane can answer. What were his life threatening injuries? Like I said, I didn't follow this trial at all, and didn't know he sustained life-threatening injuries. If he did, I can definitely see a self-defense argument. Did he spend time in a hospital? Have any surgeries?

BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or another as I never watched a minute of the trial. Only know the little I've heard.

TIA

There were no life threatening injuries. But, I'm sure you knew you did not have to sustain life threatening injuries to claim self defense, right?

True, but if you take someones life, I would think having life threatening injuries would only bolster your case.

IT certainly would, but I wouldn't let the attack get that far out of fear for my life.

Then you're guilty. You must wait until your head hits the pavement that last time right before you slip into unconciousness and/or death. If not you're wrong.

 

[jamny]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

Is the back of my head hitting concrete? Absolutely.

OK, how about in the grass as GZ himself said he maneuvered to.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Man, I wish this thread had more giant blocks of nested quotes. They're great.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

I've never used those meddling kids as evidence. I've never bought the theory for 2nd degree murder, because I've always felt that even if I granted the State every factual inference (Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, followed him, got in a confrontation, and shot him), I couldn't find facts that rose to depraved mind murder.

Conversely, if I were to grant every single factual inference in favor of Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted, but that's true in just about every murder trial. If I had to grant every single factual inference in favor Aaron Hernandez, I'd have to acquit him. But I don't think his jury is going to do that, and Zimmerman's jury isn't obligated to do so here. The only evidence to support Zimmerman's head being "bashed into concrete" or that he was "being smothered" is his own inconsistent, self-serving, unsworn statements. I don't find that evidence credible, particularly when the only other witness is dead.

My contention has always been that even if I resolve a very large number of factual disputes in Zimmerman's favor, it is still manslaughter under the law. I don't care whether Zimmerman followed Martin. It doesn't matter. I don't care whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. It doesn't matter. I suppose I would care whether Zimmerman's head was being "slammed" into the concrete, but the physical evidence suggests it wasn't, just as it suggests that Martin was not "raining down blows" on Zimmerman (or at least was not connecting on such blows).

So I assume, for Zimmerman's benefit, that Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman. The physical evidence suggests that if the police had then come around, broken up that fight, and arrested Trayvon Martin, he would have been arrested for simple battery. A jury is free to disagree, but that's my impression. And I haven't seen credible evidence that a reasonable person would have believed that he was being subjected to anything more than that. Good's testimony supports simple battery. Not aggravated battery, IMO. Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

 

[Rayderr]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

So answer my question. If you punch me in the face, can I take out a gun and shoot you? How about a slap in the face? How about push into someone's chest? Where is the line? A broken nose?

GZ decided he had enough of a beating and shot Trayvon.

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

OK, how about on top of you on the ground and punched one time in the face. Enough to shoot?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

The way to think about whether there needs to be an injury, IMO, is to consider the case of an armed assailant. If I approach you wielding a machete, or a crowbar or something, of course the law doesn't require you to let me hit you with it before you may use deadly force to protect yourself.

And in certain situations, we might imagine extending that to an unarmed assailant. We probably don't expect a 130 lb woman to have to wait for her 215 lb male assailant to actually hit her or grab her. But George Zimmerman is not Rihanna.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

 

[timschochet]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

I've never used those meddling kids as evidence. I've never bought the theory for 2nd degree murder, because I've always felt that even if I granted the State every factual inference (Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, followed him, got in a confrontation, and shot him), I couldn't find facts that rose to depraved mind murder.

Conversely, if I were to grant every single factual inference in favor of Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted, but that's true in just about every murder trial. If I had to grant every single factual inference in favor Aaron Hernandez, I'd have to acquit him. But I don't think his jury is going to do that, and Zimmerman's jury isn't obligated to do so here. The only evidence to support Zimmerman's head being "bashed into concrete" or that he was "being smothered" is his own inconsistent, self-serving, unsworn statements. I don't find that evidence credible, particularly when the only other witness is dead.

My contention has always been that even if I resolve a very large number of factual disputes in Zimmerman's favor, it is still manslaughter under the law. I don't care whether Zimmerman followed Martin. It doesn't matter. I don't care whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. It doesn't matter. I suppose I would care whether Zimmerman's head was being "slammed" into the concrete, but the physical evidence suggests it wasn't, just as it suggests that Martin was not "raining down blows" on Zimmerman (or at least was not connecting on such blows).

So I assume, for Zimmerman's benefit, that Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman. The physical evidence suggests that if the police had then come around, broken up that fight, and arrested Trayvon Martin, he would have been arrested for simple battery. A jury is free to disagree, but that's my impression. And I haven't seen credible evidence that a reasonable person would have believed that he was being subjected to anything more than that. Good's testimony supports simple battery. Not aggravated battery, IMO. Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

Wow. Once again you have gotten to the heart of the matter, with great clarity and simplicity. Why couldn't the prosecution have made this argument? Because they were so invested in murder 2 that they had to talk about "hate in his heart"?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.