Trying to make hay out of the size thing is hilarious. West wasted time and oxygen trying make their size differential a point of ambiguity so that the jury could disregard the claim that Zimmerman was on top. That was unsuccessful, though, because one witnesses explicitly indicated the man who was on top when the gun went off was the one who got up and stood over the body. Thus making the “Martin is bigger than Zimmerman” debate completely moot.
Again, that’s the same witness that swears up and down that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back. No credibility whatsoever.
Wait, isn’t this 10th grade physics? How big someone is a function of their mass. Zimmerman had more mass than Trayvon, therefore, he was bigger. Next, you’ll try to convince me that Colin Kaepernick is bigger than Chris Christie, because Mr. Kaepernick is “taller”.
- Honesty
Stupidity. How big someone is “perceived” (which is what we’re talking about here) is not a direct function of their mass. Otherwise a 1 cubic inch of gold would be “bigger” than 20 cubic inches of wood.
Well yes, the coroner’s report and the physical reality shows that he was shot in the chest, but what if we all got together and clapped our hands and believed hard enough that he was shot in the back? Isn’t that the real evidence?
That seems to be on par with the “it doesn’t matter that his actual height difference with the clerk was the diameter of a quarter, if you look at the video you can just FEEL that he was a giant borne from the bowels of Orthanc ready to swallow the clerk whole as a snack” reasoning, so in your world the witness is super credible!
You’re describing the Trayvonistas’ modus operandi.
Perceived? What do you mean perceived? How big someone is a function of someone’s mass. Period. It’d be like saying Kaepernick is bigger than Chris Christie, because Kaepernick is 6’5 and Chris Christie is not. He may be taller but “tall” is not a function of mass, weight, or how big something or someone is. It is simply a descriptor. Using it to describe someone’s mass or weight (which are really the same thing) is meaningless. If you wish to describe how big something is, you describe it’s mass first and dimensions second.
- Honesty
I’m a person of dispassionate logic. Wouldn’t bother me a bit if Zimmerman is convicted based on new evidence. I don’t care either way.
Again, the Prosecution trainwreck was predicted based on the evidence.
This is incorrect. Florida case law establishes that a jury may find a punch to be the kind of serious bodily harm that licenses deadly force in self-defense. It does not obligate the jury so to find. A jury may find that a punch occurred (or was imminently about to occur), but that notwithstanding, there was no threat of serious bodily harm which would permit deadly force.
The question as to whether serious bodily harm was imminent is a question of fact reserved for the jury. Bricker’s case establishes that a court may not conclude that a punch is non-serious bodily harm as a matter of law (and thereby take that question away from the jury).
(For the record, I don’t think Bricker has portrayed the case as holding anything different.)
On a second reading, that might be all you were suggesting. But it is probably worthwhile to note that just showing a punch will not move the needle much, the jury will then need to find that the punch represented SBH. (Of course, it will be closer to showing SBH than not showing that there was a punch.)
Considering that people have been known to die from one punch to the nose or one punch to the face (one such incident happened just a month or two ago), it is not that fantastical to consider a punch to the face a threat of “SBH”.
You’re not listening. **Kimmy ** said, it can be considered SBH. But is doesn’t have to be, and a jury can find otherwise depending on the circumstances. It is not a slam dunk.
The jury will not be asked to consider whether some possible, hypothetical punch could cause serious bodily harm (I don’t know why you its initials in scare quotes, that is the way the standard is phrased). The jury will be asked whether this actual punch, with the host of circumstances in which it occurred, augured SBH. This is an exercise in fact-finding, not a general theory of punches.
Post edit window:
The jury will come to its conclusions on the basis of the evidence and testimony at trial and the application of their general, everyday experience (a punch delivered by a person with these characteristics K in some specific situation S might be nothing (an old lady punching you in the upper arm); a punch by someone burlier might be painful, but not life-threatening; a punch by a professional boxer or to a particularly vulnerable anatomical site (the windpipe, for instance) might do serious danger) supplemented, if need be, by any expert testimony.
And of course, we know that this punch, at best, barely broke the nose, and the circumstances under which it was thrown are totally unclear, since Zimmerman’s story of being punched in the face “25 to 30 times” is obviously nonsense. So whether the jury believes Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life is going to come down to, surprise surprise, Zimmerman’s credibility, not the fact that his nose was bloodied devoid of any context.
And yet Trayvonistas keep telling us that Zimmerman’s injuries are apparently not enough to warrant self-defense. Which is wrong - they can definitely be enough.
It’s going to come down to whether the prosecution can prove he wasn’t in reasonable fear. Showing Zimmerman to be not credible will be necessary for that, but hardly sufficient.
When you’re punched in the face, and are still being attacked, and it is known that people have died from just one punch to the face, it is pretty logical that there is no need for additional great injury to feel your life is threatened. In fact, one can possibly feel reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury without any injuries inflicted on one at all.
As well as ignoring that Zimmerman has never claimed he shot him because his nose was broken, or because he was being punched and his head bashed against the ground. People have simply observed that it is reasonable to think, observing his injuries, that he may have been entitled to do so.
(Bolding added)
That sounds right. If the jury believes that banging someones head on the ground and punching them in the face can cause SBH, or even death, if it’s not stopped, then the jury should find that the use of lethal force was warranted to stop the beating/banging/punching.
In the 2010 Greyston Garcia SYG case, the Florida judge found that the video of Pedro Roteta’s swinging a bag of car radios at the head of Garcia showed “imminent danger”. (A doctor agreed that if Garcia had been hit with the radios it could have resulted in SBH.) Garcia had responded by stabbing and killing Roteta. The judge ordered the charges dropped against Garcia. In Florida.
In Florida, are the injuries to GZ face and head sufficent evidence to convince some/all of the jury that GZ could have reasonably believed that his life was in “imminent danger”? The witnesses are proving that none of them were willing to physically attempt to stop the fight. A beating is taking place, GZ can’t get away, no one will help = imminent danger. Add the struggle for the firearm.