There is no evidence that backs all of that. At least none that is available to public.
Fantasies.
This is debate. You want contradiction, down the hall.
look again.
[QUOTE]
(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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.[/QUOTE]
There is no public evidence that he tried to retreat, or that he backed off.
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:304, topic:616560”]
look again.
It is kinda hard to retreat or back off when you’re prone on the ground with the assailant sitting on you beating you bloody. And you’re missing the “or” part. 2 (a) works on its own. If Zimmerman felt that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and couldn’t escape, he could use deadly force and would be justified doing so.
Hey I can only point you to the law that explicitly contradicts you. If you refuse to read it, that’s your problem.
[quote=“Terr, post:305, topic:616560”]
No, by your own statements you say that besides the bullet hole the teenager was unhurt, that demonstrates that deadly force was his first action, which disqualify him from the exception in (a).
We do have evidence he initiated the use of force. It is not perfect evidence or absolutely incontrovertible evidence, but we do have evidence, specifically the contradiction between his statement and the alelged content of Martin’s phone call.
As to whether he had reasonable fear his life was in danger, well, we don’t know that for sure either. Getting punched in the nose doesn’t really make ME feel I’m in serious danger. It sucks, but come on. I’ve been in mortal danger and a punch in the snoot isn’t it.
This raises a fascianting question about the law though; how can the law as written possibly work? If Martin is in fear for his life, and Zimmerman is in fear for his life, the law would logically allow for flat-out Wild West gun battles between opposing forces - as indeed it has.
I’m sorry, but that simply does not sound the slightest bit believable. He was ATTACKED, and in response to being attacked he asked “what are you doing here?” Come on, no reasonable person would buy that for a second.
It’s also not consistent with the earwitness report from the girlfriend, whose previous conversation with Martin does not jibe at all with the notion that Martin was stalking Zimmerman. We know for a fact that at some point Zimmerman was following Martin; Zimmerman admitted to it. The only evidence we have that Martin followed and ambushed Zimmerman is Zimmerman’s claim after the fact, and frankly it doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense.
Is it POSSIBLE? Anything is, I suppose. Likely? Shit, no.
How many punches to the face did Zimmerman take in total?
And how many once he was already on the ground?
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:307, topic:616560”]
Never said that. Link?
Huh? If (and it’s an if as in "I have no idea if it is true) Martin doesn’t have any wounds other than the shot wound, that has no bearing whatsoever on the severity of the beating that Zimmerman was receiving from Martin.
I don’t see any contradiction. Since Martin makes the first statement on the supposed girlfriend’s phone call, he could have approached Zimmerman from behind to ask that.
You’re a tough guy, aren’t you?
“Fascianting”!
No. Since the sounds of the scuffle followed Zimmerman’s question, he could have been attacked after he asked that question. Especially since apparently there was no verbal response from Martin.
Because people never EVER turn around and walk back. It’s just impossible.
I don’t know. All I know is the eyewitness report that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman and beating him bloody.
Terr, several of us have tried to explain this to you but you just don’t want to hear it.
You can’t plead self-defense if you were the one who started the problem.
If you threaten somebody with a gun and they punch you, you can’t then say “Hey, this guy’s punching me. I can shoot him now.”
No, you can’t. You threatened him and he’s legally allowed to defend himself. You’re not legally allowed to shoot somebody because they’re defending themselves from you.
If you ask somebody what they’re doing and they don’t answer your question, that doesn’t count as a threat. You can’t point your gun at them.
If you see somebody you don’t like walking around your neighbourhood, that’s not a crime. You’d don’t have any legal (or sane) reason to treat that person like a criminal. You can’t point guns at them.
The Florida law says you can. If you reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that you exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger. It says so in clear language. How does your “explanation” trump the language of the law?
I can’t speak for the others, but I don’t really care where Zimmerman’s head ends up. I was just disturbed by the fact that initially he was not going to be charged at all.
§776.041, Fla. Stat., is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. Even if that was the only relevant statute or decisional law, it says the exact opposite of what you appear to claim it says.
[QUOTE=Florida Supreme Court]
Subsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force. Hence, subsection (2) governs the circumstance where the defendant initiated the assault, as in the hypothetical discussed in the prior paragraph.
Martinez v. Florida, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2008)
[/QUOTE]
Take a step back and think, instead of reacting. If Florida law exempted me from culpability if I started a fight, and shot the other guy because I was getting my ass kicked, it really would be the Wild West down here.
No it doesn’t. See the “unless” clause.
Yes, it does.
Would you like to guess what happened to Mr. Johnson?
He was convicted of attempted second degree murder!
None of this, of course, is to say that Zimmerman is absolutely precluded from asserting self defense. A jury may well find that he reasonably believed he acted to prevent serious bodily harm. However, the undisputed facts that (1) he did not require medical attention after being “beaten bloody”, (2) Martin was half his size, and (3) Martin was unarmed don’t bode well for him, even if the facts are exactly as he claims.
holy bananas, you zimmerman supporters have this shit all so extremely wrong.
zimmerman was told to say in his car REPEATEDLY and NOT TO ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL. he, being an admitted wannbe cop, took matters into his own hands. we can debate the part of the call where he said “fucking coons…” but we cannot debate the part of the call where he said “these assholes always get away” and decided to play cop.
so we have a person convicted of a violent crime who has a gun and has admitted he wanted to be a cop but couldn’t make that happen legitimately, so he’s pretending to be one. and he’s expressed that “this kid looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs i bet” and went against orders to remain in his car.
he was, by the definition of the legal term, STALKING a law-abiding minor. what do we teach minors to do in case of aggressors and stalkers? HIT THEM IN THE NOSE/ATTACK. the convo with the girlfriend confirms Martin was attempting to get away. she said “Run.” he said “i’m walking really fast away from him.”
it is confirmed by the cell phone conversation that Martin was aware he was being followed but some totally unidentified person in a car to the point Martin expressed he was afraid. when this stalker approached Martin, he reacted about the way anyone i can imagine would reasonably: he fought. if he started the fight, that is much more easily interpretted as honest self defense than what zimmerman is claiming.
if zimmerman started the physical altercation, that is 100% murder. he basically stalked, attacked then shot a kid for fighting back. or the other scenario is he stalk, accosted, got his everloving ass beat by then SHOT a kid.
a 13yo eye witness says they were well separated when zimmerman fired his gun. 911 calls say Martin was screaming “HELP ME” as zimmerman fired.
the responding officer, a narcotics officer, did not follow protocol by 1. taking Zimmerman in for interview/statement. he took Zimmerman on his word and admittedly did not take ANY statement but rather asked Zimmerman a series of questions (which needless to say can be leading). he also 2. did not photograph or take any evidence of Zimmerman’s claimed wounds, which is 100% protocol in any domestic disturbance of this sort, even when death is not a result, BUT ESPECIALLY WHEN DEATH IS A RESULT.
3. He did not follow protocol or policy when he failed to test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. several experts have suggested it was Zimmerman who seems to be intoxicated during the 911 calls.
and finally the police chief has already received a vote of No Confidence as of wednesday.
we can debate whether or not zimmerman had the right to shoot someone he stalked and accosted til the cows come home–those of us with common sense know that he was out looking to get into some shit and found it, and he needs to be held accountable. but debate on, whatever–
however it is NOT a debate that the case was grossly mishandled and that protocol was not followed and that the department extremely screwed up on how they failed to properly investigate this thing.
because of their lack of civic duty, we are left to debate all this. but their failure is the real problem, not the semantics of shooting a kid with skittles in his pocket because you really, really wanted to be some kind of hero. that, i think, is clearly messed up.
No. That’s apparently the way Florida appears to be and it doesn’t make it right. Out here in the sane world, the law doesn’t permit civilian death matches.
You’ve got an interesting interpretation of “reasonable.” The guy with the gun ended up with a bloodied nose and minor cut on the back of his head. Hardly sounds like a pummeling to me. Did he even need any medical attention?
It kills me that you continue to deny that being followed at night by some mysterious guy in an SUV and then on foot would be reasonably likely to inspire fear. Considering how very little actual evidence there is as to how the scuffle began, it should be just as reasonable to assume that Zimmerman, who, judging by his 911 call, was eager for a showdown of some sort*, instigated the contact as it is to believe Zimmerman that it was Martin, given that he has motive to lie if that is the case.
- As indicated by his comment, “These assholes always get away.” It’s not unreasonable to conclude that Zimmerman was making sure that Martin didn’t get away.