One punch that can break a nose can make for two black eyes due to broken blood vessels around the nose.
I see. So - did Martin break Zimmerman’s nose? And if you do agree that he did, note that AFAIR Bricker has already cited a Florida case precedent that established that breaking someone’s nose causes reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury in the one whose nose is broken.
If Zimmerman grabbed Martin’s arm or in any way tried to prevent him from leaving until the police arrived, then Martin would have been in his rights to defend himself from this assault with a punch. If Martin saw the gun when Zimmerman “went for his cell phone”, he could have interpreted that as it being brandished and due to fear for his safety, would have been justified in defending himself with a punch to prevent being shot.
Simply the fact that Martin punched Zimmerman does not mean Zimmerman was justified in shooting him if he provoked the punch.
Can I prove that Zimmerman did something to provoke the punch? No, but similarly you can’t prove that it was an unprovoked, out-of-the-blue violent attack from someone with no documented history of violence. Which seems more likely? The point is, just the fact of the punch having occurred does not close out the entire case. Sorry to disappoint.
However the meme of the savage, sustained, brutal beat down has no physical evidence to support it, so I would think that those that constantly harp about not jumping to conclusions without supporting evidence would not be repeating this tripe so often. Unless its a case of the “repeat something enough and it becomes true” tactic.
I don’t have to. You’re on the side of prosecution, if your theory is that Zimmerman attacked Martin, you have to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt. Saying “it is possible” is not even close to that standard.
I’m not the one acting like the case is already closed and/or should never have been filed. This thread is not a trial unless I’m mistaken.
This thread is about a legal matter. In order for Zimmerman to be convicted, the prosecution’s case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is no chance such standard can be met with the currently publicly released evidence. Unless the prosecution (as **Bricker **thinks/hopes for their sakes) has some explosive evidence they have not released, Zimmerman not only will be acquitted, but he also should never have been charged.
This is an opinion and speculation thread. Indeed its the title of the thread. So I’m afraid all commentary is allowed, including that with which you do not agree.
Do you think your expertise supersedes both of the lawyers and the judge in this case? Are you suggesting that all three are either incompetent or unethical? That’s a pretty serious claim, and one I’m pretty dubious of.
I definitely think that, unless the prosecution has really explosive evidence they have not released, their charging of Zimmerman with murder 2 is both unethical and incompetent, yes.
You think that the prosecutor is both unethical and incompetent? Since the Judge has gone along with the case moving forward, does it apply to him as well? Also, what about O’Mara? Why hasn’t he made any motions to dismiss or anything along those lines if there are no grounds for a trial in the affidavit? Is he incompetent as well? I’m sure you are aware that both he and Corey have kept certain evidence from being released yet to prevent the jury pool from being tainted, right? So this whole “with the evidence currently available” thing is just a red herring, since we all know there is evidence that is yet to be released, so saying “with the evidence currently available” is essentially the same as saying I don’t know for sure what happened. So isn’t it a bit premature to accuse anyone of misconduct and claim this should never go to trial if we don’t have all of the evidence?
So let me ask you, where did you study law? When did you get your degree? Did you pass the bar? Why do you think you are more qualified than anyone actually involved in the case? Have you reached out to Zimmerman to offer your services as defense council yet?
They tried to prevent even the currently publicly released evidence from being released - for the same supposed reason. I don’t see anything explosive in it or anything that justifies the charges that prosecution filed. The only things not released so far are Zimmerman’s text messages. If he texted to someone “I stalked and killed the n***r” - that would be about the only thing that would justify prosecution’s behavior. Do you really think that’s what it is?
I bet you used to be Nifong’s cheerleader as well.
Again, he did not seek a direct confrontation with Martin. So unless he was driving an armored car he gained nothing by sitting in it. Getting out of the car was the only way to keep Martin in sight.
Well as long as there’s a good reason for attacking and beating someone. :dubious:
Well the struggle reported is that Zimmerman was on the receiving end of it. I don’t see anything conspicuous about it. You punch someone in the nose and the nose breaks, not the fist hitting it. You push someone’s head into the cement, the head takes all the abuse.
That’s ironic coming from the boy waving pom-poms and crushing hard on Georgie Z.
I’m sure you must have noticed that this case has attracted enormous nationwdie attention, rallies, marches, people beating up whities and so on, in the name of Justice for Trayvon.
You can’t just ignore all that and pretend that the prosecutor and judge are making their decisions in a vacuum.
Your recollection is incorrect - the case Bricker cited established no such thing. What that case established was injuries need not be permanent to qualify as “great bodily harm.” The convict was appealing based on the fact that his victim eventually recovered from the five blows to the head he had been dealt. “Look! He’s okay now - he didn’t suffer great bodily harm!”
To be clear, the injuries in that case required extensive reconstructive surgery to repair massive damage to the skull, and are in no way comparable to the injuries George Zimmerman sustained. The guy’s head had been caved in like a ripe melon.
My recollection is the same as Terr’s.
ETA: So is Bricker’s
To correct your memory, here is Bricker’s assertion:
But take a moment to look at the actual decision:
So Bricker is correct in that ‘“great bodily harm” was found in a case in which the victim was struck five blows with a fist,’ but careful observers will notice that that case differs substantially from this case, in that there was, you know, actual great bodily harm. Anderson v. State does not establish any such unreasonably low threshold for “great bodily harm” as “x number of punches,” and certainly not (as later asserted) that ‘a punch that bloodies the nose is “serious bodily harm.”’
That’s ridiculous.
You could certainly be right - I know nothing about Florida case law (although my memory is apparently fine 
) - but that’s what Bricker is claiming anyway. See also this post, where Bricker reiterates that claim and claims that he has another case backing up his claim as well.
But again, you could be right, for all I know about this (which is not much, as above)
Is there any evidence that was alluded in the arrest warrant that we haven’t seen yet? Anybody who was familiar with the news on this case is already disqualified, so I don’t know why they wouldn’t at least mention an explosive piece of evidence when it would come out during discovery anyway. It isn’t like the lawyers don’t know what the discovery rules are for Florida. If the can try Casey Anthony here, then Zimmerman can’t be much harder. I don’t know how it was in other parts of the country, but in Orlando Anthony was in the news almost every day. I did a google search for "Casey Anthony’ in the Orlando Sentinel and got 217,000 hits.
Acording to the EMT report, there was only one laceration on the back of his head.
At what point was anybody scratching anybody?