White Girl Bleed A Lot

[desert dude]

zimmerman could not use the defense that he tried to withdraw, as there is no evidence that he tried to withdraw at any time. he followed martin in his car, and then on foot despite being told by the 911 operator to not follow martin. his only defense is

"(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; ..."

but that doesnt fly either, he was armed, his victim was not.

zimmerman has no chance with any self defense argument. he is fucked by his own stupidity. he deserves the lengthy prison time and the inevitable anal rape he has earned by being a dipshit.

the only way he could possibly defend his actions is if his lawyers cook up some silly crap about he believed martin was engaged in, or fleeing a felony, and he was attempting a citizens arrest.

zimmerman is a murderer and a depraved coward of epic proportions.

he started the fight with his stalking, and martin failed in his lawful attempt to defend himself. this does not relieve zimmerman of his culpability.

Kynes, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I agree that paragraph (a) is the one that applies:

1. Z could not escape because Martin was on top of him and beating him.
2. Z reasonably feared great bodily harm/death.

The fact that Z was armed is irrelevant to the SYG law. To say that being armed invalidates your coverage under SYG is absurd on its face. The whole point of SYG is so to allow citizens to use lethal force against an assailant and to shield the citizen who used said lethal force from gratuitous legal prosecutions.

Zim is most likely going to use 776.041, paragaph(a) as his defense.

BigLittle, I suggest you read the statute a little more closely. It specifies exemptions under paragraph (a) OR paragraph (b). Zim met the criteria under paragraph (a) and has no need to meet (b).

Having said all of this, I suggest we not turn this into a "Trayvon" thread when we have a perfectly good "Trrayvon" thread with about 9000 posts in it already.

 

[NoDrama]

no, he is reading it correctly.

No, he isn't, and neither are you. The reason its called STAND YOUR GROUND is because you have no duty to retreat.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Kynes, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I agree that paragraph (a) is the one that applies:

1. Z could not escape because Martin was on top of him and beating him.
2. Z reasonably feared great bodily harm/death.

The fact that Z was armed is irrelevant to the SYG law. To say that being armed invalidates your coverage under SYG is absurd on its face. The whole point of SYG is so to allow citizens to use lethal force against an assailant and to shield the citizen who used said lethal force from gratuitous legal prosecutions.

Zim is most likely going to use 776.041, paragaph(a) as his defense.

BigLittle, I suggest you read the statute a little more closely. It specifies exemptions under paragraph (a) OR paragraph (b). Zim met the criteria under paragraph (a) and has no need to meet (b).

Having said all of this, I suggest we not turn this into a "Trayvon" thread when we have a perfectly good "Trrayvon" thread with about 9000 posts in it already.

zimmerman went out looking for trouble, even if he had to manufacture it. he was the aggressor, by stalking. the aggressor has the obligation to attempt to disengage (retarded legalism) before he can claim self defense, or the respondant has to be way ut of line in his response to the aggressors level of violence (even more retarded)

zimmerman fails on both counts. for all we know zimmerman flashed his gun before making some statement about lynchings or pulling out his dick with intent to rape. we cant know because martin is dead, and zimmerman's credibility is less than zero

the trayvon martin tread is a useless mess of mutual masturbation and turd flinging. im not even stepping back into that monkey house.

 

[NoDrama]

zimmerman went out looking for trouble, even if he had to manufacture it. he was the aggressor, by stalking. the aggressor has the obligation to attempt to disengage (retarded legalism) before he can claim self defense, or the respondant has to be way ut of line in his response to the aggressors level of violence (even more retarded)

zimmerman fails on both counts. for all we know zimmerman flashed his gun before making some statement about lynchings or pulling out his dick with intent to rape. we cant know because martin is dead, and zimmerman's credibility is less than zero

the trayvon martin tread is a useless mess of mutual masturbation and turd flinging. im not even stepping back into that monkey house.

If Zimm were stalking, then he would have been charged with such.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No, he isn't, and neither are you. The reason its called STAND YOUR GROUND is because you have no duty to retreat.

the statute clearly states that the aggressor is required to attempt to disengage from violence he initiated and the respondent must pursue him before the initial aggressor becomes the subsequent defender.

the statute is pure crap, poorl;y designed, poorly worded, and useless in a case with no witnesses who can corroborate one story or another.

it is called stand your ground because it allows the defender to defend himself instead of requiring him to run away.

the offered sections are exceptions to justify the aggressor's use of deadly force if the defender defends himself too effectively. this makes the statute nothing more than a lawyer's delight.

california's statute is better. if you are in a place you have the undisputed right to be, (your home, your business the street etc..) and somebody attacks you (including stalking) or you witness any felony against persons OR PROPERTY (even somebody else's property) you have the right to use deadly force of your choosing against the perpetrator, but the perpetrator NEVER has any right of self defense, not matter what. (specifically allows the use of deadly force against those attempting to flee a felony, or resisting a citizen's arrest)

 

[Dr Kynes]

If Zimm were stalking, then he would have been charged with such.

he was engaged in stalking. under any definition of the word he was stalking martin. that he is not charged with stalking martin is a choice by the prosecutors.

if i follow you in my car, then follow you on foot till you are cornered, thats stalking. wheter you are a pre-teen girl, a smooth young boy, a hot chick, somebodys aged grandmother, or an adolescent male with a bad case of "too much melaninitis"

stalking could and does often include the felonies of menacing, threats of violence, and loitering with felonious intent. even if martin had not been killed zimmerman could be prosecuted under those statutes quite effectively.

 

[NoDrama]

Blah blah blah

STAND YOUR GROUND means you can stand your ground, which means you don't have to run away. Why you fail to see this most simple of explanations is beyond me, any lawyer will tell you the same thing I am telling you. If some dude comes up to you and tries to bash your head in, you don't have to run away, you can STAND YOUR GROUND and blow his ass away.

Stating that Zimm was the perpetrator/initiator of violence has not been established, all the witnesses say Martin was the initial violent one.

 

[NoDrama]

then follow you on foot till you are cornered, thats stalking.

Where was he cornered? In the middle of the lawn with a 360 degree route of escape? Doesn't sound cornered to me.
All those cars on the freeway behind you are stalking you, might want to start shooting, then tell police they were stalking you.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Where was he cornered? In the middle of the lawn with a 360 degree route of escape? Doesn't sound cornered to me.
All those cars on the freeway behind you are stalking you, might want to start shooting, then tell police they were stalking you.

so martin doesnt have the right to stand HIS ground?

also, locked gates and fences. do you propose he run in circles till the cops arrive?

zimmerman was following martin, not the other way around, zimmerman was armed, martin was not, martin had every right to be where he was, zimmerman lost that right when he started following people with his gun.

the gun owner has a responsibility to not initiate aggression. zimmerman followed martin, till martin was in a dead end. if zimmerman had backed off as required by the statute he would not have gotten his ass kicked.

under the statute getting your ass kicked does not turn a stalker into a victim. zimmerman can claim all the "feared for my life" bullshit he wants, but he had the gun. a gun turns most dipshits from cautious people into would-be Paul Kerseys (sorry kids, google Charles Bronson for more information). zimmerman became the hunter not the hunted, and sought out a target for his rage. zimmerman is not Berhard Goetz. zimmerman is a dipshit who followed an unarmed guy into the shadows confident in his gun's magic power to protect him. martin had the misfortune to be the guy zimmerman saw first.

 

[Milovan]

i don't trust any animal that bleeds
for 7 days straight and doesn't die

 

[BigLittlejohn]

I'm not sure you are reading that correctly.

That section is about who can't use stand your ground.

A person that has tried to get someone to attack them can use stand your ground laws if they attempted to leave and was still attacked.

That in no way states you have to try and leave.

That's correct, I am showing when an aggressor cannot use the stand your ground law. Once you initiate the conflict, the law imposes a duty to retreat before the use of deadly force is authorized. Duty to retreat doesn't mean you have to leave but it means you must attempt to get away from the harmful situation. If while retreating the person who did not initiate the conflict pursues, then the use of deadly force, if you fear for your life, is then justified.

There are also reasonable standards of when it's appropriate to fear for your life and staring down the barrel of a Bob Marley Iced tea and a bad of skittles simply doesn't meet that threshold.

 

[BigLittlejohn]

Kynes, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I agree that paragraph (a) is the one that applies:

1. Z could not escape because Martin was on top of him and beating him.
2. Z reasonably feared great bodily harm/death.

The fact that Z was armed is irrelevant to the SYG law. To say that being armed invalidates your coverage under SYG is absurd on its face. The whole point of SYG is so to allow citizens to use lethal force against an assailant and to shield the citizen who used said lethal force from gratuitous legal prosecutions.

Zim is most likely going to use 776.041, paragaph(a) as his defense.

BigLittle, I suggest you read the statute a little more closely. It specifies exemptions under paragraph (a) OR paragraph (b). Zim met the criteria under paragraph (a) and has no need to meet (b).

Having said all of this, I suggest we not turn this into a "Trayvon" thread when we have a perfectly good "Trrayvon" thread with about 9000 posts in it already.

The key is going to be, in invoking 776.041(2)(a) is going to be whether or not he "[e]xausted all reasonable means to escape such danger" which is for all intents and purposes, is a duty to retreat. You obviously think he exhausted all reasonable means. I think it was questionable enough to require him to be arrested and so, by the way, did the lead investigator. It's going to hinge on the interpretation of "reasonable means of escape." I don't think it reasonable that a guy who outweighs a kid by 180 pounds can be pinned to the ground in such a way after initiation of a physical confrontation that he couldn't get away.

I won't attempt to try the case on the mssg board as none of us will be privy to the evidence until the trial is on TV and as I have said all along, my issue was the lack of arrest. I will also point you to the case of a Jacksonville woman who shot and injured her husband who was admittedly abusing her. She invoked stand your ground and had a much more reasonable basis as she was the defender the entire time and she is sitting in prison because the judge ruled that she did not exhaust all reasonable means of escape before discharging her weapon. Point being, that there is a duty to retreat that is a part of this poorly written statute, which was my original point.

Nodrama - It is clear to me that you have no idea how to read the statute, and I don't mean that in an insulting or negative way. Those items listed in 776.041 are all exceptions to when "Stand Your Ground" can be legally applied unless certain conditions are applicable to the situation.

It wasn't my intention to turn this discussion into another Trayvon thread, but I was showing or attempting to show why that was a national story, which has direct correlation to the premise some have put forth.

 

[desert dude]

The key is going to be, in invoking 776.041(2)(a) is going to be whether or not he "[e]xausted all reasonable means to escape such danger" which is for all intents and purposes, is a duty to retreat. You obviously think he exhausted all reasonable means. I think it was questionable enough to require him to be arrested and so, by the way, did the lead investigator. It's going to hinge on the interpretation of "reasonable means of escape." I don't think it reasonable that a guy who outweighs a kid by 180 pounds can be pinned to the ground in such a way after initiation of a physical confrontation that he couldn't get away.

I won't attempt to try the case on the mssg board as none of us will be privy to the evidence until the trial is on TV and as I have said all along, my issue was the lack of arrest. I will also point you to the case of a Jacksonville woman who shot and injured her husband who was admittedly abusing her. She invoked stand your ground and had a much more reasonable basis as she was the defender the entire time and she is sitting in prison because the judge ruled that she did not exhaust all reasonable means of escape before discharging her weapon. Point being, that there is a duty to retreat that is a part of this poorly written statute, which was my original point.

Nodrama - It is clear to me that you have no idea how to read the statute, and I don't mean that in an insulting or negative way. Those items listed in 776.041 are all exceptions to when "Stand Your Ground" can be legally applied unless certain conditions are applicable to the situation.

It wasn't my intention to turn this discussion into another Trayvon thread, but I was showing or attempting to show why that was a national story, which has direct correlation to the premise some have put forth.

You seem like a reasonable guy. So, I will make a comment or two:

1. Z did not outweigh Martin by 180 pounds. It might have been 40 pounds. I am 6' tall and weigh 180 pounds. I have a 17 year old son who is 6' tall and weighs 165. There is no way I could out muscle my 17 year old son. Martin was 6'2" tall and weighed about 160 pounds, i.e. just about the same size and physical condition as my son. I think the strength advantage goes to Martin.

2. The fact that Martin was on top of Z and beating him eliminates the duty and ability to retreat, in my opinion.

3. The investigator himself (Serino) said Z had "marginally life threatening injuries". Marginally life threatening is life threatening, so fear or great bodily harm/death was reasonable.

I have thought all along that Z was going to use SYG 776.041, exception a, and I still do.

Zim's television appearances and voluntary statements seem foolish to me.

My prediction is a hung jury IF it ever goes to trial. I base that on reading opinions here and elsewhere. Many people have a visceral reaction to this incident, you seem to, and have already convicted Zim. The physical evidence along with eye witness accounts all corroborate Zim's account of what happened. I consider myself a fair and reasonable man. I have seen nothing to convince me that Zim is a criminal, stupid and foolish, yes, but not criminal. I think there will be at least a few people on the jury who will impartially view the evidence and conclude there is reasonable doubt about Zim committing a crime.

I agree that we should not turn this thread into a Zimmerman/Martin thread.

 

[Dr Kynes]

STAND YOUR GROUND means you can stand your ground, which means you don't have to run away. Why you fail to see this most simple of explanations is beyond me, any lawyer will tell you the same thing I am telling you. If some dude comes up to you and tries to bash your head in, you don't have to run away, you can STAND YOUR GROUND and blow his ass away.

Stating that Zimm was the perpetrator/initiator of violence has not been established, all the witnesses say Martin was the initial violent one.

so a murderous child rapist in a park has the right to use deadly force to defend himself while abducting a little girl... what a fascinating world you live in.

the aggressor (thats zimmerman, the stalker with the gun) NEVER should have a self defense claim against his victim (thats martin, the guy with the skittles)

there were no witnesses to the confrontation or the shooting. claiming there are is a lie.

 

[BigLittlejohn]

You seem like a reasonable guy. So, I will make a comment or two:

1. Z did not outweigh Martin by 180 pounds. It might have been 40 pounds. I am 6' tall and weigh 180 pounds. I have a 17 year old son who is 6' tall and weighs 165. There is no way I could out muscle my 17 year old son. Martin was 6'2" tall and weighed about 160 pounds, i.e. just about the same size and physical condition as my son. I think the strength advantage goes to Martin.

Yea, I was being a bit Hyperbolic. You outweigh your son by 15 pounds. I don't know how old you are, but I know that at 17 I was not able to out-muscle my father. My man muscles had not yet developed and he outweighed me by about 20 pounds. The Arrest report in February of this year lists Zimmerman at 200 lbs. The same report lists Martin as 160. 40 Lbs is probably right.

2. The fact that Martin was on top of Z and beating him eliminates the duty and ability to retreat, in my opinion.

Is this a fact? It's Zimmerman's story, but that doesn't make it a fact and his credibility is at issue. This will be the crux of whether or not he is convicted...whether or not the jurors believe his story because there is no one who can corroborate or refute it.

3. The investigator himself (Serino) said Z had "marginally life threatening injuries". Marginally life threatening is life threatening, so fear or great bodily harm/death was reasonable.

Marginally life threatening means "hardly life threatening", which is why Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman. He clearly did not believe that the injuries rose to the standard of life threatening permitting the use of deadly force of thought it was murky enough to need to be sorted out by the Courts. Moreover, the fact Officer Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman completely undermines your contention that he thought that Zimmerman's actions or story rose to the "reasonable" standard as established by the statute.

I have thought all along that Z was going to use SYG 776.041, exception a, and I still do.

Zim's television appearances and voluntary statements seem foolish to me.

My prediction is a hung jury IF it ever goes to trial. I base that on reading opinions here and elsewhere. Many people have a visceral reaction to this incident, you seem to, and have already convicted Zim. The physical evidence along with eye witness accounts all corroborate Zim's account of what happened. I consider myself a fair and reasonable man. I have seen nothing to convince me that Zim is a criminal, stupid and foolish, yes, but not criminal. I think there will be at least a few people on the jury who will impartially view the evidence and conclude there is reasonable doubt about Zim committing a crime.

I agree that we should not turn this thread into a Zimmerman/Martin thread.

That provision of the law is his only hope and again, it will be subject to interpretation by a jury if a judge cannot be convinced to toss it on the face of it. I do note that I find it funny that out of one side of your keyboard you can accuse me of having already judged Zimmerman guilty while out of the other side of your keyboard you have already exonerated him and are convinced that any examination of the evidence that does not come to that conclusion is not fair or impartial. I will also note that one not need to live a life of crime to commit a criminal act and I would further point out that in just about every state outside of Florida, Zimmerman's actions would have no doubt been considered criminal. As it is, even in FL, there is at least some in law enforcement that believe his actions were criminal or are at least worthy of adjudication.

I recognize that what I believe about Zimm's guilt or innocence is immaterial. My issue (as I have repeated ad nauseum) focused on the fact that he was not arrested. I also have the issue of why a young black teenager walking down the street not otherwise engaged in suspicious activity is deemed to "look suspicious". Fact is there are no eyewitness accounts and the investigating officer did not believe the physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's story.

There is only one reasonable theory as to why Zimm wasn't charged on the spot and that is based on the statutory provision that imposes civil liability on the individuals who prosecute an individual deemed to have used legal deadly force, but none of the folks involved in that decision have said that, so I am forced to draw other conclusions as to why the lead investigator was overruled.

 

[desert dude]

Yea, I was being a bit Hyperbolic. You outweigh your son by 15 pounds. I don't know how old you are, but I know that at 17 I was not able to out-muscle my father. My man muscles had not yet developed and he outweighed me by about 20 pounds. The Arrest report in February of this year lists Zimmerman at 200 lbs. The same report lists Martin as 160. 40 Lbs is probably right.



Is this a fact? It's Zimmerman's story, but that doesn't make it a fact and his credibility is at issue. This will be the crux of whether or not he is convicted...whether or not the jurors believe his story because there is no one who can corroborate or refute it.




Marginally life threatening means "hardly life threatening", which is why Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman. He clearly did not believe that the injuries rose to the standard of life threatening permitting the use of deadly force of thought it was murky enough to need to be sorted out by the Courts. Moreover, the fact Officer Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman completely undermines your contention that he thought that Zimmerman's actions or story rose to the "reasonable" standard as established by the statute.



That provision of the law is his only hope and again, it will be subject to interpretation by a jury if a judge cannot be convinced to toss it on the face of it. I do note that I find it funny that out of one side of your keyboard you can accuse me of having already judged Zimmerman guilty while out of the other side of your keyboard you have already exonerated him and are convinced that any examination of the evidence that does not come to that conclusion is not fair or impartial. I will also note that one not need to live a life of crime to commit a criminal act and I would further point out that in just about every state outside of Florida, Zimmerman's actions would have no doubt been considered criminal. As it is, even in FL, there is at least some in law enforcement that believe his actions were criminal or are at least worthy of adjudication.

I recognize that what I believe about Zimm's guilt or innocence is immaterial. My issue (as I have repeated ad nauseum) focused on the fact that he was not arrested. I also have the issue of why a young black teenager walking down the street not otherwise engaged in suspicious activity is deemed to "look suspicious". Fact is there are no eyewitness accounts and the investigating officer did not believe the physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's story.

There is only one reasonable theory as to why Zimm wasn't charged on the spot and that is based on the statutory provision that imposes civil liability on the individuals who prosecute an individual deemed to have used legal deadly force, but none of the folks involved in that decision have said that, so I am forced to draw other conclusions as to why the lead investigator was overruled.

There were two eye witnesses who stated that they saw a person matching Martin's description on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman. One witness, "John", was quite emphatic. The other witness was a young boy, don't remember his name. Zimmerman's nose was broken, his head was cut in two places on the back, the back of his his jacket was wet and grass covered. Martin was uninjured, except for scraped knuckles.

All of this physical evidence, corroborated by eye witnesses, says only one thing to me: Martin beat Zimmerman, and Zimmerman did not beat Martin. Could Zimmerman escape? I don't see how; he was on the ground taking a beating. Was his fear of death/GBH reasonable? Given the injuries, and the recorded screams for help that lasted for 45 seconds, my conclusion is that those fears were eminently reasonable. It looks to me like Zimmerman took a beating that lasted for a considerable amount of time before he shot Martin.

I am perfectly willing to change my mind, but the prosecution is going to have to present some kind of evidence to refute the physical evidence laid out above. Have you looked at the affidavit of probable cause presented by the prosecution? It is empty wrt probable cause.

 

[a.k.a. Alf]

amazing, amazingly idiotic
Alf

 

[ginwilly]

pretty sure the 2012 version of Godwin's Law involves Martin/Zimmerman

 

[NoDrama]

so a murderous child rapist in a park has the right to use deadly force to defend himself while abducting a little girl... what a fascinating world you live in.

the aggressor (thats zimmerman, the stalker with the gun) NEVER should have a self defense claim against his victim (thats martin, the guy with the skittles)

there were no witnesses to the confrontation or the shooting. claiming there are is a lie.

You keep claiming he was a stalker, but stalking means you have to follow someone around on DIFFERENT instances, the vehicle and then on foot doesn't equal different instances, it means one instance. Just like shooting someone 6 times doesn't get you charged with 6 counts of murder.

You can argue all you want, but your dead ass wrong all the way. There was a witness to the altercation, his name is Zimmerman, you fool.

 

[Dr Kynes]

pretty sure the 2012 version of Godwin's Law involves Martin/Zimmerman

im pretty sure trayvon started the fire in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory as well. my unnamed sources say he was planning on voting for Romney, so his murder was justified.