Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Zimmerman: Doctor's Report
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Travel
May 17, 2012, 1:07:22 AM5/17/12
to
Well, here it is (it's real):
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
Dutch
May 17, 2012, 1:38:31 AM5/17/12
to
You're doing a fine job of it too.
Adam Russell
May 17, 2012, 2:14:46 AM5/17/12
to
must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie. If the
prosecutor cant show that he walks. If the prosecutor proves that then
he is toast.
~M~
May 17, 2012, 8:47:51 AM5/17/12
to
"Adam Russell" wrote in message
news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
>must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on his
>back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and therefore
he was not entitled to use deadly force.
> If the prosecutor cant show that he walks. If the prosecutor proves that
> then he is toast.
He walks because he didn't commit a crime, but he's toast because the media
and a whole bunch of idiots judged him before knowing anything at all about
what happened.
--
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."
- Robert A. Heinlein
news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
>must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on his
>back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
he was not entitled to use deadly force.
> If the prosecutor cant show that he walks. If the prosecutor proves that
> then he is toast.
and a whole bunch of idiots judged him before knowing anything at all about
what happened.
--
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Adam Russell
May 17, 2012, 10:57:59 AM5/17/12
to
On 5/17/2012 5:47 AM, ~M~ wrote:
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case
>> she must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was
>> lying on his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
>
> Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and
> therefore he was not entitled to use deadly force.
I dont think I ever said that, but if the prosecutor proves that he lied
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case
>> she must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was
>> lying on his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
>
> Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and
> therefore he was not entitled to use deadly force.
about being on his back when he took the shot then that does follow. No
jury will believe he was in fear for his life if its found that he lied
about being on his back when he fired. And if he did lie about that it
is very possible that forensic evidence can disprove him. Otoh if his
claim stands up then I think the law is clear that he has the right to
self defense - regardless of who started it.
>
>> If the prosecutor cant show that he walks. If the prosecutor proves
>> that then he is toast.
>
> He walks because he didn't commit a crime, but he's toast because the
> media and a whole bunch of idiots judged him before knowing anything at
> all about what happened.
Will in New Haven
May 17, 2012, 12:06:43 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 10:57 am, Adam Russell <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
getting involved in a physical confrontation while carrying is stupid
and having it end in the death of your opponent is homicidal
stupidity.
If Zimmerman never does any time, that is just because he likely did
find himself in a situation where he had to shoot to defend himself.
If most people think he's a moron, that's just also. Because he is.
--
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 5:47 AM, ~M~ wrote:
>
> > "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> >news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>
> >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case
> >> she must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was
> >> lying on his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
> > Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and
> > therefore he was not entitled to use deadly force.
>
> I dont think I ever said that, but if the prosecutor proves that he lied
> about being on his back when he took the shot then that does follow. No
> jury will believe he was in fear for his life if its found that he lied
> about being on his back when he fired. And if he did lie about that it
> is very possible that forensic evidence can disprove him. Otoh if his
> claim stands up then I think the law is clear that he has the right to
> self defense - regardless of who started it.
That is because the charge is second-degree murder. Voluntarily
>
> > "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> >news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>
> >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case
> >> she must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was
> >> lying on his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
> > Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and
> > therefore he was not entitled to use deadly force.
>
> I dont think I ever said that, but if the prosecutor proves that he lied
> about being on his back when he took the shot then that does follow. No
> jury will believe he was in fear for his life if its found that he lied
> about being on his back when he fired. And if he did lie about that it
> is very possible that forensic evidence can disprove him. Otoh if his
> claim stands up then I think the law is clear that he has the right to
> self defense - regardless of who started it.
getting involved in a physical confrontation while carrying is stupid
and having it end in the death of your opponent is homicidal
stupidity.
If Zimmerman never does any time, that is just because he likely did
find himself in a situation where he had to shoot to defend himself.
If most people think he's a moron, that's just also. Because he is.
--
Will in New Haven
~M~
May 17, 2012, 12:17:10 PM5/17/12
to
"Adam Russell" wrote in message
news:KcadnVremfN...@giganews.com...
On 5/17/2012 5:47 AM, ~M~ wrote:
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:2LqdnfIhF9L...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case
>> she must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was
>> lying on his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
>
> Actually, what you said was that his life was never in danger and
> therefore he was not entitled to use deadly force.
>I dont think I ever said that,
Does
"1. He was in a fistfight with a minor - untrained in hand to hand combat.
2. He only had a bloody nose and a cut to the back of his head.
3. His injuries were so minor he didnt feel the need to go to the hospital.
His life was never in any danger therefore he had no call to use deadly
force - no matter who started it."
ring any bells?
>but if the prosecutor proves that he lied about being on his back when he
>took the shot then that does follow.
>No jury will believe he was in fear for his life if its found that he lied
>about being on his back when he fired.
Zimmerman.
>And if he did lie about that it is very possible that forensic evidence can
>disprove him. Otoh if his claim stands up then I think the law is clear
>that he has the right to self defense - regardless of who started it.
Zimmerman was not in danger.
>> He walks because he didn't commit a crime, but he's toast because the
>> media and a whole bunch of idiots judged him before knowing anything at
>> all about what happened.
>The media isnt in control of his fate - the court is.
circumstances were, and what his motives were, destroyed his life already.
The court had nothing to do with it, it was people that decided to fabricate
evidence that he was racist, and others that were too happy to believe it,
along with people that think you need to be beaten by trained martial
artists or movie stars in order to have the right to defend yourself.
--
"I am firmly of the opinion that if I make it to 50 in good health, I'll
make it to 100. And if I make it to 100, technology will get me to 200."
-Beldin the Sorcerer, 10/28/2007
Travel
May 17, 2012, 3:00:43 PM5/17/12
to
Travel
May 17, 2012, 3:15:20 PM5/17/12
to
The law is to protect the innocent. THis evidence vindicates the original investigation as making the correct assessment and adhering to the law.
If the situation were turned around, and it was Martin who shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense, you'd be screaming a different tune. Or, I might add, if it was YOU instead of Zimmerman in this witch-hunt situation.
Message has been deleted
Adam Russell
May 17, 2012, 5:11:25 PM5/17/12
to
On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
>
> "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
show? If they have no forensic evidence that he was lying then Ill
agree it should not have been brought. To assume they have no evidence
when they havent shown is premature, imo.
> The law is to protect the innocent. THis evidence vindicates the original investigation as making the correct assessment and adhering to the law.
Actually the original investigator wanted to bring charges but was
over-ruled.
>
> If the situation were turned around, and it was Martin who shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense, you'd be screaming a different tune.
Im not screaming at all. Just positing a reasonable explanation for why
the prosecutor might be bringing charges - because they may have
forensic evidence they havent shown you. They have mentioned there is
much forensic evidence, and it has not been released yet. Why not hear
the prosecutors case before you assume she doesnt have one?
>
> "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
>> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
>>> Well, here it is (it's real):
>>>
>>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
>>>
>>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
>>>
>>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
>>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
>>>
>>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
>>>
>>
>> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
>> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
>> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
> And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
>This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
>The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
>
The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
>> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
>>> Well, here it is (it's real):
>>>
>>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
>>>
>>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
>>>
>>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
>>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
>>>
>>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
>>>
>>
>> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
>> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
>> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
>
> And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
>This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
>The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
>
show? If they have no forensic evidence that he was lying then Ill
agree it should not have been brought. To assume they have no evidence
when they havent shown is premature, imo.
> The law is to protect the innocent. THis evidence vindicates the original investigation as making the correct assessment and adhering to the law.
over-ruled.
>
> If the situation were turned around, and it was Martin who shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense, you'd be screaming a different tune.
the prosecutor might be bringing charges - because they may have
forensic evidence they havent shown you. They have mentioned there is
much forensic evidence, and it has not been released yet. Why not hear
the prosecutors case before you assume she doesnt have one?
Travel
May 18, 2012, 10:03:26 PM5/18/12
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> >
> > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> >>>
> >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> >>>
> >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> >>>
> >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> >
> > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> >
>
> The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> show?
They don't have any evidence to support an arrest. If there were any, Zimmerman would have been arrested as a result of the legitimate investigation, months ago.
> On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> >
> > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> >>>
> >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> >>>
> >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> >>>
> >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> >
> > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> >
>
> The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> show?
A first degree murder charge at that.
This Special Prosecutor exists solely to arrest Zimmerman, in order to comply with "politically correct" demand for reverse racism; -regardless- of the facts and Zimmerman-exculpating evidence.
In fact, the new facts to come out: the doctor's report on Zimmerman and the autopsy report, serve to further strengthen Zimmerman's claim of self defense.
As "M" pointed out and proved, you're flip-flopping like a flounder: first you were saying that Zimmerman had no cause to fear for his life. Now that you've been destroyed on that line o' shit, you're blithering some other meaningless double talk.
Adam Russell
May 19, 2012, 11:55:00 AM5/19/12
to
fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
martial arts.
A day or 2 after I said that it was reported that he is claiming that he
was on his back with his head getting smashed into the pavement, and I
then had to admit that that *would* give him the right to self defense,
if true. I have not "flip flopped" otherwise. Since that point I have
consistently said that if that claim stands then he has the right to
deadly force regardless of who started it. OTOH if the prosecutor has
forensic evidence that he lied about that part then he loses that right
to use of deadly force, for all intents and purposes.
And from what Ive heard of her she doesnt seem like one to bring a
losing case just to assuage the public. She likes to win. Bringing a
case with no evidence would look very bad on her record.
da pickle
May 19, 2012, 1:00:49 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 8:55 am, Adam Russell <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense
================================================
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that
Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the
back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal
shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will
have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against
Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and
professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling
the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing.
Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful
and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately
withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face
picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a
bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of
bruises to the back of his head.
STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/AP
A Feb. 27, 2012 photo released by the State Attorney's Office shows
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon
Martin, with blood on the back of his head. The photo and reports were
among evidence released by prosecutors that also includes calls to
police, video and numerous other documents. But none of this was
included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to
support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would
establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed,
harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense
if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense
if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse
was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on
top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose,
bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if
Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by
shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that.
(The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that
Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
----------------------------------------
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:55 AM
----------------------------------------
source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vKqmG6VC
wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 7:03 PM, Travel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
>
> >>> "Travel"<travel9...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >> On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
>
> >>> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> >>>>> Well, here it is (it's real):
>
> >>>>>http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmerm...
> >>>> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> >>>>> Well, here it is (it's real):
>
================================================
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that
Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the
back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal
shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will
have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against
Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and
professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling
the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing.
Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful
and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately
withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face
picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a
bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of
bruises to the back of his head.
STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/AP
A Feb. 27, 2012 photo released by the State Attorney's Office shows
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon
Martin, with blood on the back of his head. The photo and reports were
among evidence released by prosecutors that also includes calls to
police, video and numerous other documents. But none of this was
included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to
support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would
establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed,
harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense
if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense
if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse
was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on
top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose,
bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if
Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by
shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that.
(The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that
Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
----------------------------------------
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:55 AM
----------------------------------------
source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vKqmG6VC
da pickle
May 19, 2012, 4:40:06 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/2012 12:00 PM, da pickle wrote:
> New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense
risky, why not just go back to your old handle?
> New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense
Travel
May 19, 2012, 5:34:47 PM5/19/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:03:26 PM UTC-4, Travel wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> > >
> > > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> > >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> > >>>
> > >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> > >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> > >>>
> > >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> > >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> > >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> > >
> > > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> > >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> > truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> > >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> > Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> > >
> >
> > The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> > show?
>
> They don't have any evidence to support an arrest. If there were any, Zimmerman would have been arrested as a result of the legitimate investigation, months ago.
>
> A first degree murder charge at that.
Please, stop with the endless, backpedaling-double talk, drivel.
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> > >
> > > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> > >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> > >>>
> > >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> > >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> > >>>
> > >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> > >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> > >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> > >
> > > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> > >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> > truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> > >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> > Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> > >
> >
> > The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> > show?
>
> They don't have any evidence to support an arrest. If there were any, Zimmerman would have been arrested as a result of the legitimate investigation, months ago.
>
> A first degree murder charge at that.
This Special Prosecutor exists solely to arrest Zimmerman, in order to comply with "politically correct" demand for reverse racism; -regardless- of the facts and Zimmerman-exculpating evidence. Even Alan Dershowitz has commented as much.
Pepe Papon
May 20, 2012, 3:30:56 AM5/20/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
<adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>martial arts.
I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
<adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>martial arts.
suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
crap out of someone? Also, how would you expect Zimmerman to have
known what kind of training Martin had or hadn't been through?
Adam Russell
May 20, 2012, 10:50:37 AM5/20/12
to
On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>> martial arts.
>
> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
> crap out of someone?
No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>> martial arts.
>
> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
> crap out of someone?
training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
winning.
> Also, how would you expect Zimmerman to have
> known what kind of training Martin had or hadn't been through?
Again, justified use of force requires a reasonable fear for your life.
If you got into a fight with someone that fights so well that you are
afraid you are going to die then you are allowed to use deadly force to
protect yourself.
VegasJerry
May 20, 2012, 1:46:06 PM5/20/12
to
Idiot Travel wrote:
> And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're
> wrong, now.. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're
See what a stupid statement that is? The cops at the scene knew there was PC for arrest. The DA knows there was PC for arrest. I, an excop, knows there was PC for an arrest. The Justice Department knows there's enough PC for arrest on Hate Crimes.
Poor old stupid Travel; he's the only one that doesn't know. But like I said, it's so easy to show what a fool he is…..
> This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to
> the truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story
> isn't true.
> The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a
> Special Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> The law is to protect the innocent. THis evidence vindicates the original investigation as making
> the correct assessment and adhering to the law.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
May 20, 2012, 1:43:45 PM5/20/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:50:37 AM UTC-7, Adam Russell wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
> > <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
> >> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
> >> martial arts.
> >
> > I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
> > suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
> > crap out of someone?
>
> No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
> training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
> right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
> requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
> happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
> he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
> That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
> winning.
Stand your ground does not work for Zimmerman. He was the aggressor. The profiled, stalked, and ("He's running away") confronted Martin. Martin was fighting for his life because Zimmerman contronted him and a fight ensued, and Zimmerman had a gun.
> On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
> > <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
> >> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
> >> martial arts.
> >
> > I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
> > suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
> > crap out of someone?
>
> No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
> training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
> right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
> requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
> happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
> he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
> That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
> winning.
> > Also, how would you expect Zimmerman to have
> > known what kind of training Martin had or hadn't been through?
>
> If M had training then Z would know it when he saw how well M fought.
> Again, justified use of force requires a reasonable fear for your life.
> If you got into a fight with someone that fights so well that you are
> afraid you are going to die then you are allowed to use deadly force to
> protect yourself.
Zimmerman set this up, all the way. Even if he was getting his ass kicked by a guy fighting for his life; Zimmerman is not justified in using the gun because Zimmerman was Lying in Wait.
Jerry 'n Vegas
brewmaster
May 20, 2012, 2:27:43 PM5/20/12
to
ramashiva
May 20, 2012, 2:40:50 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 11:27 am, brewmaster <agilbertc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:43:45 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
> > Stand your ground does not work for Zimmerman. He was the aggressor. The profiled, stalked, and ("He's running away") confronted Martin. Martin was fighting for his life because Zimmerman contronted him and a fight ensued, and Zimmerman had a gun.
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:43:45 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
> > Stand your ground does not work for Zimmerman. He was the aggressor. The profiled, stalked, and ("He's running away") confronted Martin. Martin was fighting for his life because Zimmerman contronted him and a fight ensued, and Zimmerman had a gun.
> > Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. You're going to hear a new phrase in the courtroom. I don't know what they call it now, but When I was a cop it was called, "Lying in wait."
> > Zimmerman set this up, all the way. Even if he was getting his ass kicked by a guy fighting for his life; Zimmerman is not justified in using the gun because Zimmerman was Lying in Wait.
> > Zimmerman set this up, all the way. Even if he was getting his ass kicked by a guy fighting for his life; Zimmerman is not justified in using the gun because Zimmerman was Lying in Wait.
> This may all be true
There is no proof that anything in Jerry's post is true. He is just
talking out his ass. He can't back up any of his claims with cites to
actual evidence, so he will just continue to assert that he is right.
William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
May 20, 2012, 7:09:33 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Adam Russell
man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
pummel me pretty good.
> > Also, how would you expect Zimmerman to have
> > known what kind of training Martin had or hadn't been through?
>
>If M had training then Z would know it when he saw how well M fought.
>Again, justified use of force requires a reasonable fear for your life.
> If you got into a fight with someone that fights so well that you are
>afraid you are going to die then you are allowed to use deadly force to
>protect yourself.
How do you know how well Martin could fight? You think that martial
arts training is the only way one can become a tough fighter? Street
fighting doesn't count?
<adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
>> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>>> martial arts.
>>
>> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
>> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
>> crap out of someone?
>
>No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
>training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
>right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
>requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
>happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
>he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
>That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
>winning.
Do you honestly think that a big, strong teenager can't pummel a grown
>On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
>> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>>> martial arts.
>>
>> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
>> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
>> crap out of someone?
>
>No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
>training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
>right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
>requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
>happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
>he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
>That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
>winning.
man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
pummel me pretty good.
> > Also, how would you expect Zimmerman to have
> > known what kind of training Martin had or hadn't been through?
>
>If M had training then Z would know it when he saw how well M fought.
>Again, justified use of force requires a reasonable fear for your life.
> If you got into a fight with someone that fights so well that you are
>afraid you are going to die then you are allowed to use deadly force to
>protect yourself.
arts training is the only way one can become a tough fighter? Street
fighting doesn't count?
ramashiva
May 20, 2012, 7:31:31 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 4:09 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
> >training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
> >right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
> >requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
> >happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
> >he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
> >That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
> >winning.
> Do you honestly think that a big, strong teenager can't pummel a grown
> man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
> pummel me pretty good.
Martin was 6' 3", 160 pounds and a high school football player, which
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
> >training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
> >right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
> >requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
> >happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
> >he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
> >That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
> >winning.
> Do you honestly think that a big, strong teenager can't pummel a grown
> man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
> pummel me pretty good.
means he was in good physical condition. These fucking idiots still
have the image burned in their so-called minds of the picture of
Martin when he was 13. Thanks MSNBC. Thanks Huffington Post. Both
these media outlets continued to feature the picture of Martin at 13
LONG after contemporary pictures were available.
fffurken
May 20, 2012, 7:48:41 PM5/20/12
to
On May 21, 12:31 am, ramashiva <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin was 6' 3", 160 pounds and a high school football player, which
> means he was in good physical condition. These fucking idiots still
> have the image burned in their so-called minds of the picture of
> Martin when he was 13. Thanks MSNBC. Thanks Huffington Post. Both
> these media outlets continued to feature the picture of Martin at 13
> LONG after contemporary pictures were available.
I think everyone has seen the contemporary pictures by now, numbnuts.
> Martin was 6' 3", 160 pounds and a high school football player, which
> means he was in good physical condition. These fucking idiots still
> have the image burned in their so-called minds of the picture of
> Martin when he was 13. Thanks MSNBC. Thanks Huffington Post. Both
> these media outlets continued to feature the picture of Martin at 13
> LONG after contemporary pictures were available.
Jesus, you're like a dog with a bone.
ramashiva
May 20, 2012, 7:59:43 PM5/20/12
to
picture of Martin at 13 a month after contemporary pictures were
available. That is fundamentally dishonest journalism.
Adam Russell
May 20, 2012, 8:22:58 PM5/20/12
to
On 5/20/2012 4:09 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
>>> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>>>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>>>> martial arts.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
>>> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
>>> crap out of someone?
>>
>> No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
>> training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
>> right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
>> requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
>> happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
>> he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
>> That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
>> winning.
>
> Do you honestly think that a big, strong teenager can't pummel a grown
> man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
> pummel me pretty good.
We arent talking about getting a beating, we are talking about being in
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Adam Russell
> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2012 12:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:55:00 -0700, Adam Russell
>>> <adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ill admit that at first I could not imagine how he could claim to be in
>>>> fear for his life when in a fist fight, against an opponent untrained in
>>>> martial arts.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why that would be hard to imagine. Are you
>>> suggesting that only someone trained in martial arts can beat the
>>> crap out of someone?
>>
>> No, I was suggesting it unbelievable that a kid with no weapons and no
>> training could put a grown man in fear of his life. You dont get the
>> right to use deadly force just because you are getting beat. It
>> requires a reasonable fear for your life. I couldnt imagine that
>> happening, but Z did provide a scenario where it was believable - that
>> he was on his back with his head getting pummeled into the sidewalk.
>> That is the claim the prosecutor must disprove if she has a real hope of
>> winning.
>
> Do you honestly think that a big, strong teenager can't pummel a grown
> man? I'm pretty sure, at my age, that an athletic teenager could
> pummel me pretty good.
fear for your life from a fistfight. If you cant understand that
concept then there is no point in discussion.
brewmaster
May 20, 2012, 8:40:30 PM5/20/12
to
Adam Russell
May 20, 2012, 9:16:43 PM5/20/12
to
you were losing a fistfight. Thats not so.
Message has been deleted
brewmaster
May 20, 2012, 9:58:04 PM5/20/12
to
Adam Russell
May 20, 2012, 10:04:09 PM5/20/12
to
fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
lives until the weapons came out.
Adam Russell
May 20, 2012, 10:06:18 PM5/20/12
to
On 5/20/2012 6:38 PM, Vince wrote:
> Adam Russell<adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:mr6dnXdouJX...@giganews.com:
> It may or not be so. That's up to a jury, if one is tried.
>
> How would you know what the person getting their ass kicked is
> thinking?
>
>
>
You are so right. It will be up to the jury to decide whether they
believe Zman was actually in fear for his life. You nailed it.
> Adam Russell<adamru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:mr6dnXdouJX...@giganews.com:
>
> How would you know what the person getting their ass kicked is
> thinking?
>
>
>
You are so right. It will be up to the jury to decide whether they
believe Zman was actually in fear for his life. You nailed it.
brewmaster
May 20, 2012, 10:08:04 PM5/20/12
to
Message has been deleted
Travel
May 21, 2012, 1:23:17 AM5/21/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:03:26 PM UTC-4, Travel wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> > >
> > > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> > >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> > >>>
> > >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> > >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> > >>>
> > >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> > >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> > >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> > >
> > > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> > >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> > truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> > >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> > Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> > >
> >
> > The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> > show?
They don't have any evidence to support an arrest. If there were any, Zimmerman would have been arrested as a result of the legitimate investigation, months ago.
A second degree murder charge at that.
> > On 5/17/2012 1:03 PM, Vince wrote:
> > >
> > > "Travel"<trave...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3509184.846.1337282120252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfo1...
> > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:14:46 AM UTC-4, Adam Russell wrote:
> > >> On 5/16/2012 10:07 PM, Travel wrote:
> > >>> Well, here it is (it's real):
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431153/doctors-report-reveals-zimmermans-injuries-the-day-after-he-shot-trayvon-martin-dead
> > >>>
> > >>> Also the Martin autopsy report is in: He had one gunshot wound, and another separate wound on his finger in the ring-wearing area (caused by beating Zimmerman, obviously).
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll refresh you douchebags memories of what I told you from the beginning:there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. There has to be probable cause for arrest.
> > >>> There must be evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's claim of self defense to establish probable cause in this case. There wasn't any. In fact, there was concrete evidence that Zimmerman's story was true: see the report, above.
> > >>>
> > >>> The governor of Florida (for allowing) and this Special (hack) Prosecutor (for implementing) should be impeached for this outrageous, political witch-hunt of racism against white people.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ive been saying all along that for the prosecutor to bring this case she
> > >> must have forensic evidence to show that his claim that he was lying on
> > >> his back with M on top of him WHEN HE TOOK THE SHOT was a lie.
> > >
> > > And what you've been saying all along has been wrong, and you're wrong, now. There was no probable cause for arrest in the first place.
> > >This evidence of Zimmerman's injuries just provides overkill to the
> > truth of that there's zero evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true.
> > >The arrest by the Special Prosecutor, and that there's a Special
> > Prosecutor at all, is obviously a travesty of justice.
> > >
> >
> > The prosecutor hasnt shown their evidence yet. Why not wait till they
> > show?
They don't have any evidence to support an arrest. If there were any, Zimmerman would have been arrested as a result of the legitimate investigation, months ago.
ramashiva
May 21, 2012, 1:28:50 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 10:19 pm, Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:
> brewmaster <agilbertc...@gmail.com> wrote innews:cec6a40b-2f64-45bb...@googlegroups.com:
> > A couple drunken idiots are unlikely to strike a blow in a
> > deadly spot. Somebody as big and strong as Martin can easily
> > beat somebody to death. When Coleman says he can stomp
> > somebody into a grease spot, you know he means he can easily
> > beat you to death with his hands due to his size and strength,
> > right? If somebody like that is beating you, wouldn't you be
> > in fear for your life? I would.
> That's another consideration. Coleman probably wouldn't be in fear
> for his life, but I would. The question is, was the Z man?
If a guy had me pinned down on my back and was straddling me, I would
certainly be in fear for my life. The guy can pound the fuck out of
your head and face, but you can't reach his head and face. About all
you can do is cover up and try to ward off blows with your forearms.
I am a big fan of ending fights before they begin by cold cocking the
guy with a roundhouse closed fist to the temple. Or shoving the guy
so hard he goes down, then kicking the fuck out of him before he can
get up. One good kick to the head or face and the fight is over. If
the fight goes to the ground, you are in danger of getting pinned
down, as described above.
> brewmaster <agilbertc...@gmail.com> wrote innews:cec6a40b-2f64-45bb...@googlegroups.com:
> > A couple drunken idiots are unlikely to strike a blow in a
> > deadly spot. Somebody as big and strong as Martin can easily
> > beat somebody to death. When Coleman says he can stomp
> > somebody into a grease spot, you know he means he can easily
> > beat you to death with his hands due to his size and strength,
> > right? If somebody like that is beating you, wouldn't you be
> > in fear for your life? I would.
> for his life, but I would. The question is, was the Z man?
If a guy had me pinned down on my back and was straddling me, I would
certainly be in fear for my life. The guy can pound the fuck out of
your head and face, but you can't reach his head and face. About all
you can do is cover up and try to ward off blows with your forearms.
I am a big fan of ending fights before they begin by cold cocking the
guy with a roundhouse closed fist to the temple. Or shoving the guy
so hard he goes down, then kicking the fuck out of him before he can
get up. One good kick to the head or face and the fight is over. If
the fight goes to the ground, you are in danger of getting pinned
down, as described above.
Travel
May 21, 2012, 2:19:32 AM5/21/12
to
>However, I don't see how any of the facts presented support 2nd >degree murder.
>Manslaughter, yes, murder, no. If they don't give the jury an >option for a lesser included charge.
In Florida they can give the jury the option of lesser charges.
>I think Z walks.
O.J. should have been convicted, Casey Anthony, too. The Oklahoma pharmacist should not only walked at his trial, but never should have been arrested in the first place.
These are all left wing "social justice" cases. Or, political witch hunt, kangaroo courts. Take your pick.
Travel
May 21, 2012, 2:42:18 AM5/21/12
to
The law wasn't written to make race baiters happy, it was written with the idea of protecting the innocent in mind, and protecting citizens from unlawful arrest by the government.
As with the Oklahoma pharmacist, Zimmerman, because of race baiting pressure, was unlawfully arrested.
Your to stupid to understand the concept of freedom and constitutional protection from an overreaching government. The law isn't intended to apply only when it suits a Turd or Adam Russell.
Pepe Papon
May 21, 2012, 2:44:47 AM5/21/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:22:58 -0700, Adam Russell
In other words, you're saying that one can't be beaten to death in a
fistfight. If that's really what you believe then you're right,
there *is* no point in discussion.
fistfight. If that's really what you believe then you're right,
there *is* no point in discussion.
Travel
May 21, 2012, 2:59:33 AM5/21/12
to
Travel
May 21, 2012, 2:30:13 AM5/21/12
to
Message has been deleted
~M~
May 21, 2012, 1:49:22 PM5/21/12
to
"Adam Russell" wrote in message
news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share of
>fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their lives
>until the weapons came out.
Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
--
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."
- Robert A. Heinlein
news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share of
>fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their lives
>until the weapons came out.
potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
--
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 3:43:56 PM5/21/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
is, what is the likelihood? What proportion of fist fights result in
death? Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
Truthseeker
May 21, 2012, 4:32:16 PM5/21/12
to
This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
feared for his life or not?
As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
be carried by six."
--
Truthseeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Message has been deleted
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 4:48:40 PM5/21/12
to
Truthseeker wrote:
> On 5/21/12 1:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> ~M~ wrote:
>>> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
>>> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>>>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>>>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood? What proportion of fist fights result in
>> death? Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
> feared for his life or not?
That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
> On 5/21/12 1:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> ~M~ wrote:
>>> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
>>> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>>>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>>>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood? What proportion of fist fights result in
>> death? Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
> feared for his life or not?
evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
> be carried by six."
he did not witness?
fffurken
May 21, 2012, 5:05:12 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 9:32 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> > Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
> > is, what is the likelihood? What proportion of fist fights result in
> > death? Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
> feared for his life or not?
It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> > Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
> > is, what is the likelihood? What proportion of fist fights result in
> > death? Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
> feared for his life or not?
IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
Pepe Papon
May 21, 2012, 5:44:04 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:48:40 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>> feared for his life or not?
>
>That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
The thing is that Zimmerman doesn't really have to prove that it was
>>
>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>> feared for his life or not?
>
>That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
>> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>> be carried by six."
>
>Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
>he did not witness?
evidence, how are they going to prove anything?
Pepe Papon
May 21, 2012, 5:45:56 PM5/21/12
to
Adam Russell
May 21, 2012, 6:12:23 PM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/2012 10:49 AM, ~M~ wrote:
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
There is a possibility that I could be hit by lightning when I walk out
> "Adam Russell" wrote in message
> news:is-dnSMPY_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen my fair share
>> of fistfights in my younger days and no one was ever in fear for their
>> lives until the weapons came out.
>
> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
my front door. Doesnt mean Im in fear for my life. In the same way it
is also possible a lucky punch could kill you in a fistfight. Doesnt
mean you are in fear for your life that it might happen.
Z doesnt have to convince the jury that fatal consequence was possible,
but that he had a "reasonable fear". If his story stands that he was on
his back when he fired the shot that would do it. But if he lied about
that fact then its likely the jury wont believe him that he was in fear
for his life.
fffurken
May 21, 2012, 6:06:57 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 10:45 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> >IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> >their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> >ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> Fortunately for Zimmerman, your opinion doesn't coincide with the law.
And I never said the law isn't broken.
> >It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> >IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> >their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> >ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> Fortunately for Zimmerman, your opinion doesn't coincide with the law.
The whole idea of effectively taking the Castle Doctrine to the street
is also murderously fucked in the head to me.
Waddaya gonna do, call me a liberal?
Mossingen
May 21, 2012, 6:37:52 PM5/21/12
to
out of hand. When I was in college we went out partying at a bar called
Tumbleweeds in Stillwater, OK. After it closed at 2:00 a.m., there was
always a huge crowd of drunk college kids milling around in the parking lot
looking for a hook-up or an after-party. Fistfights were common, but I
remember one night in particular when some athletes from Oklahoma State were
out there and were drunk, mean, and fighting with people. These guys were
huge and it was scary. I saw one of them cold-cock a kid just outside the
door on the concrete sidewalk. The hit knocked the kid out and he fell over
and smashed his head on the concrete (they ended up having to call an
ambulance for him). The guy who did it looked around for someone else to
fight. I remember thinking about trying to get my gun out of my car because
if this guy came after me he could very easily kill me, and there was
probably not a damned thing I could do about it. If he was angry enough and
started pounding on me, I couldn't stop him, and there was no rule that he
had to quit.
That's the thing about street fights. Most end with some simple bumps and
bruises, but you never know if you'll be fighting a guy who is willing to
take it all the way. It's like Coleman said, if someone gets you down and
starts banging your head on the sidewalk or gets you in a choke hold, there
is guarantee that they will stop.
TruthSeeker
May 21, 2012, 6:46:01 PM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 2:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
A person claiming self-defense doesn't have to prove it. The
situation where it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fear for
his life despite the absence of a weapon. In such a case it would be
morally, and in Florida legally, justifiable to use deadly force to
defend oneself.
That situation may or may not have been the case here. As you pointed
out, a jury must decide, and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person claiming self-defense did not have a such a fear for his life.
From what we've seen recently that is going to be difficult for the
prosecution to prove (although I'm sure that we have not seen all of the
evidence that the jury is going to see).
--
TruthSeeker
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>> feared for his life or not?
> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
Yes, the jury will have to decide, because it is not unreasonable for
>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>> feared for his life or not?
> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
A person claiming self-defense doesn't have to prove it. The
prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
>> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>> be carried by six."
> Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
> he did not witness?
Where did I decide any such thing? I was offering an example of a
>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>> be carried by six."
> Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
> he did not witness?
situation where it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fear for
his life despite the absence of a weapon. In such a case it would be
morally, and in Florida legally, justifiable to use deadly force to
defend oneself.
That situation may or may not have been the case here. As you pointed
out, a jury must decide, and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person claiming self-defense did not have a such a fear for his life.
From what we've seen recently that is going to be difficult for the
prosecution to prove (although I'm sure that we have not seen all of the
evidence that the jury is going to see).
--
TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker
May 21, 2012, 6:51:10 PM5/21/12
to
many other places. You don't even have to be in fear of your own life.
If you reasonably fear that someone else's life is in imminent danger
you can use deadly force to protect them.
Please note that the instigator of a physical altercation can't claim
self-defense, nor can someone claim self-defense when he kills someone
in the commission of a felony.
--
TruthSeeker
fffurken
May 21, 2012, 7:15:51 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 11:51 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> > It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> > IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> > their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> > ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> That may be your opinion, but it's not the law, not in Florida nor in
> many other places. You don't even have to be in fear of your own life.
> If you reasonably fear that someone else's life is in imminent danger
> you can use deadly force to protect them.
>
> Please note that the instigator of a physical altercation can't claim
> self-defense, nor can someone claim self-defense when he kills someone
> in the commission of a felony.
You're being a little too tangential for me to give you any more of a
> > It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> > IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> > their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> > ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> That may be your opinion, but it's not the law, not in Florida nor in
> many other places. You don't even have to be in fear of your own life.
> If you reasonably fear that someone else's life is in imminent danger
> you can use deadly force to protect them.
>
> Please note that the instigator of a physical altercation can't claim
> self-defense, nor can someone claim self-defense when he kills someone
> in the commission of a felony.
reply. Sorry.
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 8:55:50 PM5/21/12
to
Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:48:40 -0700, Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>>> feared for his life or not?
>>
>> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
>
> The thing is that Zimmerman doesn't really have to prove that it was
> self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
That's not quite an accurate description of their burden. They don't
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:48:40 -0700, Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>>> feared for his life or not?
>>
>> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
>
> The thing is that Zimmerman doesn't really have to prove that it was
> self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
have to "prove" anything, they have to show to the satisfaction of 12
jurors that given these circumstances is not reasonable to believe that
Zimmerman acted in self defense. People kill other people all the time,
with no witnesses, claim self defense, and end up being convicted.
>>> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
>>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>>> be carried by six."
>>
>> Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
>> he did not witness?
>
> This is the problem faced by the prosecution. With such scant
> evidence, how are they going to prove anything?
will paint a different one, and if the prosecution's picture is clearly
more plausible to those particular jurors then he will be found guilty.
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 9:07:15 PM5/21/12
to
in a fist fight. If Martin had been armed in any way that would be
different. I think the prosecution might be able to convince a jury that
Zimmerman's deadly response was completely unreasonable.
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 9:13:51 PM5/21/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 5/21/12 2:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>
>>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>>> feared for his life or not?
>
>> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
>
> Yes, the jury will have to decide, because it is not unreasonable for
> someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
> produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
> example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
> reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
You are making the defense's case.
> On 5/21/12 2:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>
>>> This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
>>> some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
>>> feared for his life or not?
>
>> That is exactly what the jury is going to have to decide from the
>> evidence. They don't have to accept Zimmerman's [self serving] word that
>> he[reasonably] feared for his life. What proportion of those accused
>> with murder do you suppose claim self-defense?
>
> Yes, the jury will have to decide, because it is not unreasonable for
> someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
> produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
> example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
> reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
> A person claiming self-defense doesn't have to prove it. The
> prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
>>> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
>>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>>> be carried by six."
>
>> Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
>> he did not witness?
>
> Where did I decide any such thing?
self-defense and everything you've said on the subject from the start
leads to that conclusion.
I was offering an example of a
> situation where it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fear for
> his life despite the absence of a weapon. In such a case it would be
> morally, and in Florida legally, justifiable to use deadly force to
> defend oneself.
question, so the job of the jury is a little different and trickier than
the usual, "Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"
>
> That situation may or may not have been the case here. As you pointed
> out, a jury must decide, and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
> person claiming self-defense did not have a such a fear for his life.
> From what we've seen recently that is going to be difficult for the
> prosecution to prove (although I'm sure that we have not seen all of the
> evidence that the jury is going to see).
quite often despite protestations of self defense, even though no eye
witnesses were present.
FL Turbo
May 21, 2012, 9:19:00 PM5/21/12
to
the other on his back pounding his head into the pavement.
TruthSeeker
May 21, 2012, 9:47:46 PM5/21/12
to
On 5/21/12 7:13 PM, Dutch wrote:
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 2:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Yes, the jury will have to decide, because it is not unreasonable for
>> someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
>> produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
>> example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
>> reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
> You are making the defense's case.
I'm not making anyone's case, I am pointing out the parameters that
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 2:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Yes, the jury will have to decide, because it is not unreasonable for
>> someone being attacked to fear for his life even if no weapons have been
>> produced. Many people are murdered by strangling with bare hands, for
>> example. Bashing someone's head into concrete is something that any
>> reasonable and objective person knows can cause death as well.
> You are making the defense's case.
govern in all such cases. For example, I am not claiming that Martin
was bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement, I don't know that. I am
pointing out that someone doing this instills a reasonable fear for
their life in the person that they are doing it to. So IF the evidence
ends up demonstrating that this is what happened, then Zimmerman is not
guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Please stop ignoring the "IF."
>> A person claiming self-defense doesn't have to prove it. The
>> prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
> That's not true.
that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. A defendant never has
to prove his innocence, the prosecution must prove his guilt to get a
conviction.
...
>> Where did I decide any such thing?
> It's all you have done. You're convinced that the killing was justified
> self-defense and everything you've said on the subject from the start
> leads to that conclusion.
I'm convinced of no such thing and I've not claimed any such thing. I
> It's all you have done. You're convinced that the killing was justified
> self-defense and everything you've said on the subject from the start
> leads to that conclusion.
haven't seen all the evidence. See the next paragraph. YOU are the one
claiming that it can't be self-defense because it was "only a fistfight."
> I was offering an example of a
>> situation where it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fear for
>> his life despite the absence of a weapon. In such a case it would be
>> morally, and in Florida legally, justifiable to use deadly force to
>> defend oneself.
> Remember, Zimmerman is already guilty of homicide, that is not in
> question,
Zimmerman is guilty of nothing until convicted in a court of law. That
he shot Martin dead is not in dispute, whether it was a crime is the
question before the court.
so the job of the jury is a little different and trickier than
> the usual, "Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"
reasonable doubt. A misdemeanor, FTM.
>> That situation may or may not have been the case here. As you pointed
>> out, a jury must decide, and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
>> person claiming self-defense did not have a such a fear for his life.
>> From what we've seen recently that is going to be difficult for the
>> prosecution to prove (although I'm sure that we have not seen all of the
>> evidence that the jury is going to see).
>
> Now that is a reasonable position. But people are convicted of murder
> quite often despite protestations of self defense, even though no eye
> witnesses were present.
Properly so, self defense is often claimed when it was not the case.
That's what the court will determine in this case.
Adam Russell
May 21, 2012, 9:57:23 PM5/21/12
to
for his life - until he said he was getting his head bashed into the
sidewalk.
I think some are trying to claim that the sidewalk part isnt even
necessary, and that just the fact that he was getting beat was
sufficient to allow deadly force.
~M~
May 21, 2012, 10:21:20 PM5/21/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:jXwur.17501$x11....@newsfe21.iad...
>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question is,
>what is the likelihood?
It depends on where and when you cross. Some places and times are so
dangerous that they are illegal.
>What proportion of fist fights result in death?
A couple things:
1. It doesn't matter.
2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question is,
>what is the likelihood?
dangerous that they are illegal.
>What proportion of fist fights result in death?
1. It doesn't matter.
2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
Travel A
May 21, 2012, 10:20:18 PM5/21/12
to
Poupon wrote:
This whole line is rather ridiculous. How can any of you know whether
some other person, during an altercation that you did not witness,
feared for his life or not?
Exactly why, what amounts to the race-baiters' obfuscation, is basically
irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is zero evidence that
Zimmerman's statements of being in fear for his life NOT true and, in
fact, Zimmerman's statment is evidence-supported by his injuries.
Throw-in the 911 call-tape of Zimmerman screaming for help, and eye
witnsses stating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Plus, the autopsy
report proving that the shot to Martin is consistent with Martin being
on top of Zimmerman and, further, Martin sustaining a significant cut on
his ring finger/knuckles.
Slam dunk for no probable cause for the arrest of Zimmerman. Clear self
defense, and at the very least, zero evidence to the contrary. These
incidents have to be resolved in some way, and that's the law: "probable
cause." Not: "let's pick n' choose and burn the guy that we're calling
-the white guy,- with no evidence, and make Dutch happy." You can't
just arrest somone and bring them to trial because it looks like a good
opportunity to send a message to "racist honkies." There's a
constitution that protects citizens from this kind of government abuse.
The race baiters wanted Zimmerman arrested so they could have another
"shot at him" in an O.J. a style, rigged trial.
It's outrageous that Zimmerman was even arrested: it happened only
through the total curruption of race-based "politically correct"
political and media-supporting pressure.
What if a douchebag like Dutch or Turd was attacked and they defended
themselves with lawful deadly force as, Zimmerman? You can very much
best believe they'd be screaming for, and expect the same benefit of the
law as Zimmerman. That is, that Zimmerman received upon the initial,
legitimate investigation.
Note: on a previous post, above: make that, "too," not "to."
Note: some of my "Chrome browser" posts on the beta-testing Google
Groups didn't show-up there, but did here on my TV-2, built-in
newsreader. So, it's a PITA checking and going back and forth, and I'm
probably off this thread. As usual, I'm just repeating the same truth,
over and over again to douchebags, anyway.
FL Turbo
May 21, 2012, 10:34:29 PM5/21/12
to
"It is almost impossible to convince someone by usiing logic when they
have already come to a conclusion through emotion"
Message has been deleted
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 11:17:12 PM5/21/12
to
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 11:24:00 PM5/21/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:jXwur.17501$x11....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood?
>
> It depends on where and when you cross. Some places and times are so
> dangerous that they are illegal.
The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:jXwur.17501$x11....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood?
>
> It depends on where and when you cross. Some places and times are so
> dangerous that they are illegal.
death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>> What proportion of fist fights result in death?
>
> A couple things:
> 1. It doesn't matter.
fear when in the situation.
> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
someone in the D.A.'s office?
Message has been deleted
Dutch
May 21, 2012, 11:40:21 PM5/21/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:jXwur.17501$x11....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood?
>
> It depends on where and when you cross. Some places and times are so
> dangerous that they are illegal.
>
>> What proportion of fist fights result in death?
>
> A couple things:
> 1. It doesn't matter.
> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>
>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>
A man is seen following a woman who is subsequently in the ER reporting
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:jXwur.17501$x11....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>>> Then Brew is right and you are wrong. The fact that a fist fight carries
>>> potential fatal consequences is not an opinion, it's a fact.
>
>
>> Crossing the street carries potential fatal consequences. The question
>> is, what is the likelihood?
>
> It depends on where and when you cross. Some places and times are so
> dangerous that they are illegal.
>
>> What proportion of fist fights result in death?
>
> A couple things:
> 1. It doesn't matter.
> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>
>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>
a rape, the man who followed her is identified as the culprit, however
he claims she assaulted him, and he shows the scratches and bruises to
prove it.
Pepe Papon
May 22, 2012, 2:43:46 AM5/22/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:55:50 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> The thing is that Zimmerman doesn't really have to prove that it was
>> self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
>
>That's not quite an accurate description of their burden. They don't
>have to "prove" anything, they have to show to the satisfaction of 12
>jurors that given these circumstances is not reasonable to believe that
>Zimmerman acted in self defense. People kill other people all the time,
>with no witnesses, claim self defense, and end up being convicted.
False. The law is that the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a
>> The thing is that Zimmerman doesn't really have to prove that it was
>> self-defense. The prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.
>
>That's not quite an accurate description of their burden. They don't
>have to "prove" anything, they have to show to the satisfaction of 12
>jurors that given these circumstances is not reasonable to believe that
>Zimmerman acted in self defense. People kill other people all the time,
>with no witnesses, claim self defense, and end up being convicted.
reasonable doubt.
>
>>>> As for "is it reasonable," if I had an assailant on top of me beating my
>>>> head into concrete, I expect that I might very well fear for my life.
>>>> And if so I would embrace the advice that I was given during my
>>>> volunteer police training: "It is better to be tried by twelve than to
>>>> be carried by six."
>>>
>>> Now who has already decided what took place during an altercation that
>>> he did not witness?
>>
>> This is the problem faced by the prosecution. With such scant
>> evidence, how are they going to prove anything?
>
>They don't have to. The prosecution will paint a picture, the defense
>will paint a different one, and if the prosecution's picture is clearly
>more plausible to those particular jurors then he will be found guilty.
evidence". This is the wrong standard to apply in a criminal case.
The law is that the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. And the vote must be unanimous among the 12
jurors.
Pepe Papon
May 22, 2012, 2:49:07 AM5/22/12
to
original statement was incorrect with regard to the facts. The word
for that in fffurkenese is "nitpicking".
Pepe Papon
May 22, 2012, 2:58:29 AM5/22/12
to
reports that Martin was a 6'3" 240lb athlete. If someone like that
were beating the crap out of me, you're damn straight I'd be in fear
of my life.
Pepe Papon
May 22, 2012, 3:00:50 AM5/22/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:24:00 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> What proportion of fist fights result in death?
>>
>> A couple things:
>> 1. It doesn't matter.
>
>It does matter, it goes to the heart of what a person should reasonably
>fear when in the situation.
"Reasonable fear". I like it. Fear is an emotion. Emotions
>>> What proportion of fist fights result in death?
>>
>> A couple things:
>> 1. It doesn't matter.
>
>It does matter, it goes to the heart of what a person should reasonably
>fear when in the situation.
aren't necessarily governed by reason.
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 3:22:06 AM5/22/12
to
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 3:31:37 AM5/22/12
to
threatening and shoot them. We are guilty of murder, we are responsible
for our irrational emotions and responses.
fffurken
May 22, 2012, 6:20:11 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 7:49 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> >> >IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> >> >their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> >> >ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> >> Fortunately for Zimmerman, your opinion doesn't coincide with the law.
>
> >And I never said the law isn't broken.
>
> >The whole idea of effectively taking the Castle Doctrine to the street
> >is also murderously fucked in the head to me.
>
> >Waddaya gonna do, call me a liberal?
>
> No, you're entitled to your opinion. I merely pointed out that your
> original statement was incorrect with regard to the facts. The word
> for that in fffurkenese is "nitpicking".
I might call it nitpicking if I knew what you were babbling about.
> >> >It's not enough for someone to just say he was in fear of his life.
> >> >IMO, it's not neccesarily enough for someone to even *be* in fear of
> >> >their life to make it crimeless to take another. Unarmed cowards take
> >> >ass whoopings every day and wake up the next morning.
>
> >> Fortunately for Zimmerman, your opinion doesn't coincide with the law.
>
> >And I never said the law isn't broken.
>
> >The whole idea of effectively taking the Castle Doctrine to the street
> >is also murderously fucked in the head to me.
>
> >Waddaya gonna do, call me a liberal?
>
> No, you're entitled to your opinion. I merely pointed out that your
> original statement was incorrect with regard to the facts. The word
> for that in fffurkenese is "nitpicking".
What "statement" of mine exactly was "incorrect with regard to the
facts"?
~M~
May 22, 2012, 10:02:31 AM5/22/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in death,
>probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>Really?
Yes.
>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>>
>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
No, just you.
>Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a fist
fight. No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was a
willing combatant.
--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011
>The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in death,
>probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>Really?
>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>>
>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
fight. No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was a
willing combatant.
--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2012, 12:28:54 PM5/22/12
to
gets to the point of one person being on the ground being pummelled.
This demonstrates that the person on the ground is helpless _and_ that
the other person is not taking the usual, "ok, we've had a fight and
I've won" attitude but is intent on doing more harm.
I once had to stop my brother from finishing someone off without a
weapon. While I'm not sure that Martin was as vicious a specimin as my
brother was when we were teenagers, I don't doubt the self defence
claim on the basis that "it was just a fist-fight."
What I doubt is that Zimmerman can be without blame for getting _into_
the situation in the first place. I have carried a firearm for most of
my adult life and gotten into physical confrontations when _not_
carrying several times but never when armed.
If I had a choice among
a: avoiding the situation,
b: throwing down on someone and holding him at gunpoint or
c: getting in a fight when armed,
I would choose a every time. If a is impossible, you go to b. The only
way c can happen is if the other party attacks unexpectedly. This
doesn't seem like the case here.
--
Will in New Haven
ramashiva
May 22, 2012, 1:57:38 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 9:28 am, Will in New Haven
relatives, is that Zimmerman was returning to his car to wait for the
police, when Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him.
I don't believe there has been any evidence released to suggest that
this narrative is not true. There are also reports that forensic
evidence shows the gunshot was fired at point blank range, which is
consistent with Zimmerman firing his weapon while Martin was on top of
him.
If the prosecutor can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Zimmerman's narrative is false, then Zimmerman walks.
All the discussion in this thread about whether Zimmerman was in fear
for his life is irrelevant. There is an eyewitness who saw Martin on
top of Zimmerman right before the shooting. We now know that
Zimmerman had a broken nose, and that he had lacerations on the back
of his head consistent with having his head pounded on concrete.
William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> What I doubt is that Zimmerman can be without blame for getting _into_
> the situation in the first place. I have carried a firearm for most of
> my adult life and gotten into physical confrontations when _not_
> carrying several times but never when armed.
> If I had a choice among
> a: avoiding the situation,
> b: throwing down on someone and holding him at gunpoint or
> c: getting in a fight when armed,
> I would choose a every time. If a is impossible, you go to b. The only
> way c can happen is if the other party attacks unexpectedly. This
> doesn't seem like the case here.
That is Zimmerman's story. The narrative, as related by friends and
> What I doubt is that Zimmerman can be without blame for getting _into_
> the situation in the first place. I have carried a firearm for most of
> my adult life and gotten into physical confrontations when _not_
> carrying several times but never when armed.
> If I had a choice among
> a: avoiding the situation,
> b: throwing down on someone and holding him at gunpoint or
> c: getting in a fight when armed,
> I would choose a every time. If a is impossible, you go to b. The only
> way c can happen is if the other party attacks unexpectedly. This
> doesn't seem like the case here.
relatives, is that Zimmerman was returning to his car to wait for the
police, when Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him.
I don't believe there has been any evidence released to suggest that
this narrative is not true. There are also reports that forensic
evidence shows the gunshot was fired at point blank range, which is
consistent with Zimmerman firing his weapon while Martin was on top of
him.
If the prosecutor can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Zimmerman's narrative is false, then Zimmerman walks.
All the discussion in this thread about whether Zimmerman was in fear
for his life is irrelevant. There is an eyewitness who saw Martin on
top of Zimmerman right before the shooting. We now know that
Zimmerman had a broken nose, and that he had lacerations on the back
of his head consistent with having his head pounded on concrete.
William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2012, 2:47:33 PM5/22/12
to
into the real subtext of the definition of "a fistfight."
As a young man, I learned that a fistfight was consensual. One could
be hurt, even hurt badly but once one of the participants was
incapacitated, it was only right for the other to back off and let
medical treatment be sought if it were needed. If ones opponent didn't
want to fight or ran away, his honor was stained and there was no need
to hit him.
People differed about the appropriateness of kicking, etc but the
general idea was that it was a game, with rules and honor expected
from both parties.
That is the subtext of "no ones life is in danger in a fistfight" and
it does not cover this situation at all.
His life or at least his health was in serious danger. _At that
moment_ he was justified in using deadly force. Whether he should and
could have avoided reaching that moment is a different question but no
answer to that question would support a murder charge.
--
Willy "The Lamb" Reich
~M~
May 22, 2012, 3:27:41 PM5/22/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:ZVDur.11810$Oh3....@newsfe12.iad...
>A man is seen following a woman who is subsequently in the ER reporting a
>rape, the man who followed her is identified as the culprit, however he
>claims she assaulted him, and he shows the scratches and bruises to prove
>it.
Your unrelated scenario fails to mention if the eyewitness testimony
corroborates the man's story, as it does with Zimmerman.
>A man is seen following a woman who is subsequently in the ER reporting a
>rape, the man who followed her is identified as the culprit, however he
>claims she assaulted him, and he shows the scratches and bruises to prove
>it.
corroborates the man's story, as it does with Zimmerman.
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 4:21:43 PM5/22/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>
>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>
> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon. Zimmerman had
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>
>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>
> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
martial arts training, he should not have feared for his life.
>
>>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>
>> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>
> No, just you.
I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you. It's not
>>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>
> No, just you.
usually called assault when you go after someone to confront them and
end up getting punched in the nose.
>> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
>
> I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
> fist fight.
> No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
> a willing combatant.
bonnet, no way he wanted Martin to get away. Martin was minding his own
business, that leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman was the instigator
of the incident.
Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest
him and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the
incident would have been avoided, but he didn't. Zimmerman precipitated
the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of police dispatch and
going after Martin. Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid
for it with his life.
I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
possible. It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work
within their limitations when doing community patrols and no go all
Rambo. An acquittal will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 4:29:04 PM5/22/12
to
scenario? It doesn't really ring true. I don't know of any evidence in
the background of Trayvon Martin to lead me to the conclusion that he
was the kind of kid that would ever beat a man to death. OK, obviously
Zimmerman doesn't know that, so his alleged belief that his life is in
danger is a function of his own racist paranoia. But even if he did fear
for his life, Zimmerman precipitated the whole incident in the first
place, so where does his accountability come in?
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 4:35:02 PM5/22/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:ZVDur.11810$Oh3....@newsfe12.iad...
>
>
>> A man is seen following a woman who is subsequently in the ER
>> reporting a rape, the man who followed her is identified as the
>> culprit, however he claims she assaulted him, and he shows the
>> scratches and bruises to prove it.
>
> Your unrelated scenario fails to mention if the eyewitness testimony
> corroborates the man's story, as it does with Zimmerman.
Other witness testimony is unclear, incomplete, unreliable, and so far
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:ZVDur.11810$Oh3....@newsfe12.iad...
>
>
>> A man is seen following a woman who is subsequently in the ER
>> reporting a rape, the man who followed her is identified as the
>> culprit, however he claims she assaulted him, and he shows the
>> scratches and bruises to prove it.
>
> Your unrelated scenario fails to mention if the eyewitness testimony
> corroborates the man's story, as it does with Zimmerman.
contradictory, as is generally the case and as it is presently in this case.
ramashiva
May 22, 2012, 4:42:29 PM5/22/12
to
> > "Dutch" wrote in messagenews:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
> >> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
> >> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
> > This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
> It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon. Zimmerman had
> martial arts training, he should not have feared for his life.
> >>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
> >> Really?
> > Yes.
> Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
> >>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
> >>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
> >> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
> > No, just you.
> I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you.
LMFAO! OMFG! Turn off MSNBC! It has been widely reported that
Zimmerman's version of events is that he was returning to his car to
> >> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
> > I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
> > fist fight.
>
> What else do you call two men fighting with their bare hands?
> > No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
> > a willing combatant.
> He was the one in hot pursuit,
Cite??? Stop making up bullshit not supported by evidence.
> he obviously had a real bee in his
> bonnet, no way he wanted Martin to get away. Martin was minding his own
> business, that leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman was the instigator
> of the incident.
You are so full of shit that it is breathtaking. At the court hearing
when the Affidavit of Probable Cause was presented, the LEAD
INVESTIGATOR said he had no evidence to suggest who initiated the
confrontation.
> Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest
> him and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the
> incident would have been avoided, but he didn't. Zimmerman precipitated
> the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of police dispatch and
> going after Martin.
There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after the 911
call ended.
> Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid for it with his life.
Will you stop? Please, just stop.
> I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
> possible. It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work
> within their limitations when doing community patrols and no go all
> Rambo. An acquittal will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
You are hopeless, Dutch. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to
suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
Martin and instigated the confrontation.
What the fuck is wrong with you??? Did you miss the court hearing
where the lead investigator was asked if he had any evidence as to who
initiated the confrontation??? His answer was NO. Got that? NO.
From the time this incident has started being discussed, you and a few
others have put forth a fact free narrative. Plenty of evidence has
now been released, and NONE of it supports the claim that Zimmerman
pursued Martin AFTER the 911 call ended, or the claim that Zimmerman
initiated the confrontation.
Turn off MSNBC. Seriously. Most of the hosts on MSNBC have been
lying about what the evidence shows from Day 1, and they continue to
do so.
> >> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
> >> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
> > This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
> It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon. Zimmerman had
> martial arts training, he should not have feared for his life.
> >>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
> >> Really?
> > Yes.
> Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
> >>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
> >>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
> >> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
> > No, just you.
> I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you.
Zimmerman's version of events is that he was returning to his car to
wait for the police, when Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him.
> It's not usually called assault when you go after
> someone to confront them and
> end up getting punched in the nose.
Zero evidence that that's what happened.
> someone to confront them and
> end up getting punched in the nose.
> >> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
> > I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
> > fist fight.
>
> What else do you call two men fighting with their bare hands?
> > No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
> > a willing combatant.
> He was the one in hot pursuit,
> he obviously had a real bee in his
> bonnet, no way he wanted Martin to get away. Martin was minding his own
> business, that leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman was the instigator
> of the incident.
when the Affidavit of Probable Cause was presented, the LEAD
INVESTIGATOR said he had no evidence to suggest who initiated the
confrontation.
> Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest
> him and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the
> incident would have been avoided, but he didn't. Zimmerman precipitated
> the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of police dispatch and
> going after Martin.
call ended.
> Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid for it with his life.
> I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
> possible. It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work
> within their limitations when doing community patrols and no go all
> Rambo. An acquittal will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
Martin and instigated the confrontation.
What the fuck is wrong with you??? Did you miss the court hearing
where the lead investigator was asked if he had any evidence as to who
initiated the confrontation??? His answer was NO. Got that? NO.
From the time this incident has started being discussed, you and a few
others have put forth a fact free narrative. Plenty of evidence has
now been released, and NONE of it supports the claim that Zimmerman
pursued Martin AFTER the 911 call ended, or the claim that Zimmerman
initiated the confrontation.
Turn off MSNBC. Seriously. Most of the hosts on MSNBC have been
lying about what the evidence shows from Day 1, and they continue to
do so.
fffurken
May 22, 2012, 4:49:43 PM5/22/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
'Instigated', not 'initiated'. By telling you this, I hope you will be
able to better understand what Dutch means.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2012, 4:46:57 PM5/22/12
to
Zimmerman's racism is not in evidence and, in fact, there is a great
deal of evidence, of the character witness kind, that he was not a
racist.
Zimmerman was very likely guilty of stupid behavior leading to a
dangerous situation. Once he was in that situation he had reason to
believe that his life was in danger. If you don't see that, you are a
naive child. A man who does not stop hitting you when you are down and
subdued may be intent on your death. The history of the species says
so.
What Zimmerman cannot be guilty of, absent much more and different
evidence than we have seen so far, is murder in any degree. If the
state does not include a suitable lesser charge, he will and should
walk. If they do include a lesser charge, they still haven't proven
it.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2012, 4:53:54 PM5/22/12
to
more important concept here. Whoever instigates a violent incident, it
is the person who initiates the use of force who is legally
responsible.
And we don't know who did that.
fffurken
May 22, 2012, 5:22:47 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 9:46 pm, Will in New Haven
But seriously, what was the final tally on like the 44 calls, or
whatever it was, he made to the police which reported black suspects?
TIA for your answer, I get most of my information about this case on
RGP.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Zimmerman's racism is not in evidence and, in fact, there is a great
> deal of evidence, of the character witness kind, that he was not a
> racist.
With niggers he knows!
> Zimmerman's racism is not in evidence and, in fact, there is a great
> deal of evidence, of the character witness kind, that he was not a
> racist.
But seriously, what was the final tally on like the 44 calls, or
whatever it was, he made to the police which reported black suspects?
TIA for your answer, I get most of my information about this case on
RGP.
fffurken
May 22, 2012, 5:41:35 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 9:53 pm, Will in New Haven
Yes, it is more subtle. Instigated and initiated are separated by a
timeline in the discussion I was responding to here. Dutch seems to
have no problem believing that Martin initiated the physical
confrontation and that Zimmerman instigated what would become a
physical confrontation resulting in death.
I was simply doing my bit to aid efficient discourse. As someone who
is frequently misunderstood on this newsgroup, it's the least I can do.
timeline in the discussion I was responding to here. Dutch seems to
have no problem believing that Martin initiated the physical
confrontation and that Zimmerman instigated what would become a
physical confrontation resulting in death.
I was simply doing my bit to aid efficient discourse. As someone who
is frequently misunderstood on this newsgroup, it's the least I can do.
Adam Russell
May 22, 2012, 6:45:28 PM5/22/12
to
on his back with Z on top beating his head into the sidewalk when he
fired the shot) then it follows that his claim that he was in fear for
his life stands up. They arent separate. And being in fear for his
life cant be irrelevant because that is what is required by law to
justify deadly force.
ramashiva
May 22, 2012, 7:03:29 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 3:45 pm, Adam Russell <adamrussel...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
It is precisely because the two things are equivalent that the
discussion about whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life is
irrelevant.
If the jury believes that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was
pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, then they will necessarily
conclude that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
So far, we have three factors suggesting this scenario --
Zimmerman's reported narrative.
Lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's head.
Eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman right before shooting.
There is no evidence that has been released which casts doubt on this
scenario. We also have no evidence suggesting who initiated the
confrontation. The lead investigator said in a court hearing that he
has no evidence concerning who initiated the confrontation.
Maybe the Special Prosecutor has some evidence which she is holding
back which contradicts Zimmerman's narrative. In the absence of such
evidence, Zimmerman walks.
wrote:
discussion about whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life is
irrelevant.
If the jury believes that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was
pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, then they will necessarily
conclude that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
So far, we have three factors suggesting this scenario --
Zimmerman's reported narrative.
Lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's head.
Eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman right before shooting.
There is no evidence that has been released which casts doubt on this
scenario. We also have no evidence suggesting who initiated the
confrontation. The lead investigator said in a court hearing that he
has no evidence concerning who initiated the confrontation.
Maybe the Special Prosecutor has some evidence which she is holding
back which contradicts Zimmerman's narrative. In the absence of such
evidence, Zimmerman walks.
~M~
May 22, 2012, 8:07:32 PM5/22/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:eNSur.16728$3y3....@newsfe20.iad...
>Other witness testimony is unclear, incomplete, unreliable, and so far
>contradictory, as is generally the case and as it is presently in this
>case.
The only clear testimony is the eyewitness testimony that indicates
Zimmerman was assaulted.
>Other witness testimony is unclear, incomplete, unreliable, and so far
>contradictory, as is generally the case and as it is presently in this
>case.
Zimmerman was assaulted.
fffurken
May 22, 2012, 7:58:50 PM5/22/12
to
> You are hopeless, Dutch. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to
> suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
> ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
> Martin and instigated the confrontation.
But he got out of his car, shortly after lamenting "they always get
> suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
> ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
> Martin and instigated the confrontation.
away", and when we he started running we heard the wind blowing and
him saying what sounded like, "fuckin cold".
I'm sorry, isn't that a pursuit? Didn't we all hear that?
I could be wrong, in which case feel free to set the record straight.
I get most of my information on this case from RGP.
ramashiva
May 22, 2012, 8:23:47 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 4:58 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 9:42 pm, ramashiva <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are hopeless, Dutch. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to
> > suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
> > ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
> > Martin and instigated the confrontation.
> But he got out of his car, shortly after lamenting "they always get
> away", and when we he started running we heard the wind blowing and
> him saying what sounded like, "fuckin cold".
> I'm sorry, isn't that a pursuit? Didn't we all hear that?
You have major reading comprehension problems. Here is what I said --
> On May 22, 9:42 pm, ramashiva <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are hopeless, Dutch. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to
> > suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
> > ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
> > Martin and instigated the confrontation.
> But he got out of his car, shortly after lamenting "they always get
> away", and when we he started running we heard the wind blowing and
> him saying what sounded like, "fuckin cold".
> I'm sorry, isn't that a pursuit? Didn't we all hear that?
"There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman
continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call ended."
which Zimmerman replied yes. That's when the 911 dispatcher told
Zimmerman, "OK. We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied,
"OK." Then the wind sounds and heavy breathing stopped, suggesting
that Zimmerman had indeed stopped following Martin. This has been
discussed over and over here on RGP. It really gets tiresome to go
over the same material time after time for those who can't keep up.
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 8:25:07 PM5/22/12
to
ramashiva wrote:
> On May 22, 1:21 pm, Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> ~M~ wrote:
>
>>> "Dutch" wrote in messagenews:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>
>>>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>>>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>
>>> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
>
>> It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon. Zimmerman had
>> martial arts training, he should not have feared for his life.
>
>>>>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>
>>>> Really?
>
>>> Yes.
>
>> Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
>
>>>>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
>>>>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>>>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>
>>> No, just you.
>
>> I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you.
>
> LMFAO! OMFG! Turn off MSNBC! It has been widely reported that
> Zimmerman's version of events is that he was returning to his car to
> wait for the police, when Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him.
He is charged with murder, his version of events don't qualify as
> On May 22, 1:21 pm, Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> ~M~ wrote:
>
>>> "Dutch" wrote in messagenews:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>
>>>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>>>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>
>>> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
>
>> It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon. Zimmerman had
>> martial arts training, he should not have feared for his life.
>
>>>>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>
>>>> Really?
>
>>> Yes.
>
>> Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
>
>>>>>> Is it reasonable to fear for one's life in a fist fight?
>
>>>>> Irrelevant, since this was an assault.
>
>>>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>
>>> No, just you.
>
>> I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you.
>
> LMFAO! OMFG! Turn off MSNBC! It has been widely reported that
> Zimmerman's version of events is that he was returning to his car to
> wait for the police, when Martin came out of nowhere and attacked him.
reliable evidence.
>> It's not usually called assault when you go after
>> someone to confront them and
>> end up getting punched in the nose.
>
> Zero evidence that that's what happened.
discount Zimmerman's statements as self serving. Then look at the
sequence of events, Z is following M, not the other way around, from the
audio tape he is very anxious not to lose track of him, and there is
subsequently a confrontation. The obvious conclusion is that he caught
up to him. It would be a logical leap to believe that the one being
pursued caught up to his pursuer. Absent any corroborating evidence I
would not believe that version of events.
>>>> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
>
>>> I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
>>> fist fight.
>>
>> What else do you call two men fighting with their bare hands?
>
>>> No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
>>> a willing combatant.
>
>> He was the one in hot pursuit,
>
> Cite??? Stop making up bullshit not supported by evidence.
>> he obviously had a real bee in his
>> bonnet, no way he wanted Martin to get away. Martin was minding his own
>> business, that leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman was the instigator
>> of the incident.
>
> You are so full of shit that it is breathtaking. At the court hearing
> when the Affidavit of Probable Cause was presented, the LEAD
> INVESTIGATOR said he had no evidence to suggest who initiated the
> confrontation.
>> Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest
>> him and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the
>> incident would have been avoided, but he didn't. Zimmerman precipitated
>> the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of police dispatch and
>> going after Martin.
>
> There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after the 911
> call ended.
stopped his pursuit.
>> Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid for it with his life.
>
> Will you stop? Please, just stop.
>
>> I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
>> possible. It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work
>> within their limitations when doing community patrols and no go all
>> Rambo. An acquittal will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
>
> You are hopeless, Dutch. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence to
> suggest that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin AFTER the 911 call
> ended. Yet here you are stating as a fact that Zimmerman was pursuing
> Martin and instigated the confrontation.
being pursued do not generally catch up to those pursuing them.
> What the fuck is wrong with you??? Did you miss the court hearing
> where the lead investigator was asked if he had any evidence as to who
> initiated the confrontation??? His answer was NO. Got that? NO.
> From the time this incident has started being discussed, you and a few
> others have put forth a fact free narrative. Plenty of evidence has
> now been released, and NONE of it supports the claim that Zimmerman
> pursued Martin AFTER the 911 call ended, or the claim that Zimmerman
> initiated the confrontation.
> Turn off MSNBC. Seriously. Most of the hosts on MSNBC have been
> lying about what the evidence shows from Day 1, and they continue to
> do so.
And I don't watch MSNBC. Turn off Fox asshole.
Dutch
May 22, 2012, 8:32:30 PM5/22/12
to
fffurken wrote:
> On May 22, 9:53 pm, Will in New Haven
>>
> On May 22, 9:53 pm, Will in New Haven
>>
>>> 'Instigated', not 'initiated'. By telling you this, I hope you will be
>>> able to better understand what Dutch means
>>
>> Instigated is a much more subtle term.
>
> Yes, it is more subtle. Instigated and initiated are separated by a
> timeline in the discussion I was responding to here. Dutch seems to
> have no problem believing that Martin initiated the physical
> confrontation and that Zimmerman instigated what would become a
> physical confrontation resulting in death.
>
> I was simply doing my bit to aid efficient discourse. As someone who
> is frequently misunderstood on this newsgroup, it's the least I can do.
The sequence of events does not support Zimmerman's assertion that he
>>> able to better understand what Dutch means
>>
>> Instigated is a much more subtle term.
>
> Yes, it is more subtle. Instigated and initiated are separated by a
> timeline in the discussion I was responding to here. Dutch seems to
> have no problem believing that Martin initiated the physical
> confrontation and that Zimmerman instigated what would become a
> physical confrontation resulting in death.
>
> I was simply doing my bit to aid efficient discourse. As someone who
> is frequently misunderstood on this newsgroup, it's the least I can do.
was the victim of a surprise attack by Martin. His assertion to that
effect is too self serving to be of any use and does not ring true.
Common sense and the available evidence so far overwhelmingly says that
he caught up to Martin and attempted to detain him. Who laid the first
hand on who probably only Zimmerman knows.
I agree that given only what we know so far it will be difficult to
convict Zimmerman of anything serious.
~M~
May 22, 2012, 8:50:59 PM5/22/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:LASur.39293$ax3....@newsfe05.iad...
>>> "Dutch" wrote in message news:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>>>
>>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>>
>> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
>
>It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon.
The same thing as what?
>Zimmerman had martial arts training, he should not have feared for his
>life.
Anyone with martial arts training knows that a physical confrontation
carries potentially fatal consequences.
>>>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
No, the only evidence available indicates that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
>>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>>
>> No, just you.
>
>I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you. It's not usually
>called assault when you go after someone to confront them and end up
>getting punched in the nose.
Actually, yes it is.
>>> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
>>
>> I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
>> fist fight.
>
>What else do you call two men fighting with their bare hands?
That's not what was happening.
>> No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
>> a willing combatant.
>He was the one in hot pursuit,
The evidence indicates otherwise. He obviously can't be in hot pursuit if he
is having a conversation with the 911 dispatcher about where to meet the
police.
>he obviously had a real bee in his bonnet,
Which law does that violate?
>no way he wanted Martin to get away.
Which law does that violate?
>Martin was minding his own business, that leads to the conclusion that
>Zimmerman was the instigator of the incident.
Only if you want that to be the conclusion.
>Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest him
>and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the incident would
>have been avoided, but he didn't.
This is complete fantasy. There is no evidence that any of this happened.
>Zimmerman precipitated the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of
>police dispatch and going after Martin.
You have no idea that this happened, and Zimmerman had just as much right to
be where he was as Martin did.
>Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid for it with his life.
Martin bullied a guy and paid for it with his life.
>I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
>possible.
I am happy to see him convicted of any crime he committed.
>It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work within their
>limitations when doing community patrols and no go all Rambo. An acquittal
>will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
Wannabe cops are just as bad as official cops. It's still not illegal to be
one. In addition, neighborhood watches cause far less harm than assaulting
people because you don't like them following you.
>>> "Dutch" wrote in message news:DGDur.31804$_l....@newsfe15.iad...
>>>
>>> The point is that a fight between two unarmed men rarely results in
>>> death, probably as infrequently as jaywalking.
>>
>> This was not a fight between two unarmed men. Stick to the situation.
>
>It is the same thing if neither combatant uses a weapon.
>Zimmerman had martial arts training, he should not have feared for his
>life.
carries potentially fatal consequences.
>>>> 2. This wasn't a fist fight, it was an assault.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Aren't you leaping ahead of the evidence a bit?
>>> You apparently have everyone else at at a disadvantage here.
>>
>> No, just you.
>
>I haven't heard the word assault used by anyone but you. It's not usually
>called assault when you go after someone to confront them and end up
>getting punched in the nose.
>>> Do you know someone in the D.A.'s office?
>>
>> I haven't seen them call it a fist fight. I've only seen you call it a
>> fist fight.
>
>What else do you call two men fighting with their bare hands?
>> No where has anyone made a reasonable case the Zimmerman was
>> a willing combatant.
>He was the one in hot pursuit,
is having a conversation with the 911 dispatcher about where to meet the
police.
>he obviously had a real bee in his bonnet,
>no way he wanted Martin to get away.
>Martin was minding his own business, that leads to the conclusion that
>Zimmerman was the instigator of the incident.
>Maybe if Martin had viewed him as having the legal authority to arrest him
>and had obeyed Zimmerman's probable command to stop then the incident would
>have been avoided, but he didn't.
>Zimmerman precipitated the whole thing by disobeying the instruction of
>police dispatch and going after Martin.
be where he was as Martin did.
>Martin refused to be bullied and profiled and paid for it with his life.
>I would love to see Zimmerman convicted of a lesser charge if that is
>possible.
>It would be a good lesson to wannabe cops everywhere to work within their
>limitations when doing community patrols and no go all Rambo. An acquittal
>will be seen as a license to kill stray niggers.
one. In addition, neighborhood watches cause far less harm than assaulting
people because you don't like them following you.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages