Yeah, let’s jump back here for a moment.
One doctor says it’s possible for Martin to have been conscious for a few minutes. Another says it’s possible for Martin to have been conscious for twenty to thirty seconds. Neither of them says it’s possible, likely, or probable that Martin was speaking full sentences, cussing, groaning, sitting up, and fighting back. I don’t think this talking-head piece changes anyone’s argument either way.
That strawman has nothing to do with the actual events of the self-defense shooting. If things were different, things would be different.
GZ wasn’t forced to defend his life against a single punch. TM was repeatedly beating GZ. GZ’s neighbors refused to physically get involved. GZ was on his own to save his own life. TM died that night because he chose to repeatedly beat GZ. TM made the wrong choice.
I realize it’s now meaningless, but if one. or more, of the neighbors had rushed out to stop Martin, there would have been no shooting. From the neighbor’s perspective, it might have been dangerous to do so.
This seems to be be a sort of shoot-the-messenger reaction. If you accept that we’re correctly relaying the state of the law to you, then why is the legal profession at fault?
And if you don’t accept that we’re correctly relaying the state of the law to you, then what evidence would be necessary? See, what I’m trying to get you to do is understand that if Martin struck Zimmerman first, before Zimmerman so much as assaulted Martin, that creates a certain set of facts to which the law applies in a certain way. I don’t know what the actual facts are, of course. But I can say that if we agree that a certain set of facts happened, then the result under the law is X.
So that’s what I’m saying here. I have no idea if the two came face to face and Zimmerman told Martin he had fives seconds to live, so he better start praying, and that was the reason Martin struck him. If that’s how it went down, then my earlier conclusion doesn’t apply.
I am saying simply that IF Zimmerman was struck first, before he broke any laws, then what I said is correct.
If you don’t like the truth of that, it’s not the legal profession to blame. (Well, OK – it’s not the lawyers, but the legislators, to blame; I suppose they are part of the “legal profession.”)
It was definately a dangerous thing to do but it was their neighborhood. If one neighbor had tried to stop the fight, other neighbors might have joined in and tried to help stop the fight. Surrounding the fighters and saying, “What the hell are you doing? Stop beating that man or we’ll kick both your asses. The police are on their way and both of you are going to jail.” But that didn’t happen.
One man was being beaten and his crys for help went physically unaided. He was on his own to save his own life. Did he believe that his life was in imminent danger? Would the next blow to his head result in unconciousness or death? Florida law says that you can use lethal force to save your life. Florida law says that residents who qualify to carry a firearm can carry a firearm to save their life.
TM made the wrong choice that night.
You said:
Do you still stand by that?
I objected to that claim because it was so wide sweeping. I agree with you that’s it’s unlikely, but not with the claim that it’s not possible. Again, having seen shot animals react, the vast majority with a heart shot drop instantly. But the rare case can manage steps, even dozens of steps, so I know there’s a possibility in mammals. For this reason, I attacked your claim of not possible.
Now, you seem to be saying that likely and probable are more the watchwords here. If that’s your claim, then I agree with you.
This bears no resemblance to Bricker’s statement and I think you know that. It is one thing to argue your point of view, make suppositions, and give your opinion. It is something else to be disingenuous in an attempt to discredit those that hold a dissimilar view point.
Bricker gave a hypothetical, yet similar to the known facts, scenario in which restraint after the cessation of hostilities would be justified.
I have no problem with that. I get the sense that you are looking for loopholes through which to convict Zimmerman. I just don’t see such a conviction holding up even if it is successful. The State had better have a better case than loopholes. I am going to be pissed if Zimmerman is convicted and then later walks due to procedural errors or such.
You’re not correctly relaying the state of the law. That’s why I have a major problem with you.
A punch is non-deadly force. A gun is a deadly weapon. The minute you shoot at someone because they punched you, you become guilty of applying excessive force. For you to then grab and detain them means you’re committing false imprisonment, on top of the crime of aggravated battery. That’s not even factoring in you insitigating the conflict by first stalking and then failing to explain yourself.
This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance. Why are so you committed to spreading it from the pedestal of your profession? Given the subject we’re talking about, not only is that irresponsible. It’s wreckless and dangerous.
His hypothetical fits with what I just described. Notice he hasn’t corrected me on it either, so there’s no need for you to cape for him. I’m sure if he has an issue with how I’ve characterized his argument, he’ll set me straight.
Well, to be technical, my claim was not that it was impossible, but that I would be surprised to hear qualified medical professionals assert that Zimmerman’s account of Martin’s post-shooting behavior was possible. Yeah, let’s go with unlikely or improbable. Really, really really effing unlikely. 99.999999% improbable.
I’ll speak what is on my mind as I see fit, thank you. I do not need your permission or approval to do so.
Maybe Bricker thinks there is no reason to comment on the crazy way you twist peoples words.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin…
[/QUOTE]
Pretty clear and concise that in the hypothetical Martin is the instigator. As for the punch, Bricker already explained under what conditions that could be construed as great bodily harm.
You talk in “for instances”, “supposition”, and “inferences” and get quite wound up when someone points to specifics that are problematic with your generalities. It is IMHO so you can do that. I for one hope the State can make a more rational argument to fulfill their burden of proof.
You realize, if/when the experts come forward and say that he could have vocalized some words, this statement may come back to haunt you.
Only in your fantasies.
Like I said before, there is no need to cape for him. I’ve given him multiple opportunities to correct my interpretation of what he wrote, and he has yet to tell me I’ve misconstrued him.
What part? Or all in total? Moving in my opinion not so improbable. However I have no cite to other than those already presented. I would be very interested in a cite that significant trauma to the heart/lungs 99.999999% of the time results in immediate cessation of all movement. It would certainly educate me, and it would be damning evidence that Zimmerman is a lying liar.
Several people have shown you where your “interpretation of what he wrote” has missed the mark. At this point you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating “na, na, na, na, I can’t hear you.”
Because you’re not Bricker and he’s the one who came up the hypothetical we’re debating the legality of.
I would be interested as well. But the cite has to deal with the precise injuries delivered to Trayvon Martin, not any old case of significant trauma to the heart/lungs. I want to see cases dealing with a destroyed ventricle, not a shooting where the bullet nicked the heart. And it’s not immediate cessation of all movement: it’s whether or not Trayvon had the power to sit up and keep talking after the shooting.
This is IMHO not GD. It is my opinion that Bricker gave a hypothetical illustrating his interpretation of what would constitute a legal post assault/shooting detainment under the law in Florida.
I didn’t have much trouble with that and am really confused why you do. Ever since the State charged Zimmerman Bricker has been pretty vocal that the State must have one or more damning pieces of evidence that we have not been privy to. I’m fine with that take on it. I don’t need to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and make the facts we know fit a conviction. I am willing to assume the State is more capable than you or I and have built a sound case incorporating some facts still not in the public realm.
I understand now. Thanks.
Yes that would seem to be much less likely, though a subset of the first. Is it possible how “reasonable” hinges on how likely the jury believes the first to be?