Because black people don’t have the right to defend themselves when attacked by a stalker.
It wouldn’t have happened, that’s kinda the point. We can now see in the cold light of day that his injuries weren’t life threatening, that he was up and about immediately after the shooting with no major problems. He wasn’t hospitalized, and his injuries were consistent with a pathetic street fight. Exactly the sort of fight that you’d expect to happen between a soft 28-year-old and a skinny unarmed teenager.
If Zimmerman hadn’t been armed, the fight would have continued on for another 90 seconds, cops would have shown up, he may have had a few more cuts or bruises that would heal completely in a week and we’d have gotten to hear Martin’s side of the story.
At the time, Zimmerman didn’t know the fight was going to end that way, partly because he’d made certain assumptions about the mysterious stranger (he had something in his hands, he was reaching in his waistband, he’s on drugs or something, he’s messed up), partly because he’s a soft 28-year-old with no street fighting experience, and partly he was getting his ass kicked and adrenaline does strange things. So his claim of self defense may or may not be valid, but he’s at least got an argument there.
To continue to argue that he made the right call to use deadly force, knowing everything we know now about the situation, the parties involved, and the actual injuries received, is pretty silly.
Nobody, black or white, has the right to attack someone for asking them what they are up to.
[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
His injuries are totally inconsistent with having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete. That’s the entire point.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s your entire point, you don’t have one. Zimmerman’s injuries are, in fact, consistent with his story. This has been established by the medical reports, medical testimony, and Serino’s testimony.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, you have to wait for your life to be threatened and not just to get a boo-boo on your widdle head before you can kill someone. That’s how self-defense with lethal force works.
There has been no “medical testimony.” A “physician’s assistant” who examined Zimmerman a whole day later being asked if the ground “could have been” the cause of the band-aid-level wounds he did have is seven million miles away from “medical testimony” about his life being in danger. As usual, Zimmerman’s defenders are living in an alternate universe.
Zimmerman WAS NOT punched in the face 25 to 30 times and he DID NOT have his head slammed into concrete repeatedly. There is absolutely no way this could have happened and produced the photos of a man with one small cut, a bloody nose, and no broken bones, bruises, brain damage, or other injuries whatsoever. It did not happen and he is lying when he says it did.
Rachel Jeantel testified Zimmerman assaulted Martin.
You logic won’t go very far with the ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ crowd, even though shooting first kinda guarantees you won’t be able to (or need to) ask questions anyway…
That’s #2 on my list: innocent, and also lying to embellish his defense. There’s a decent chance that this is true, but proving it is a very different matter.
I agree that he can’t be shown to be guilty of second-degree murder. Since that’s what he’s been charged with, he should be acquitted.
Not exactly, you must be in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. You don’t need to be wounded at all; if you run at me with a knife raised, I can use deadly force and be justified even though you never got within fifteen feet of me.
Similarly, Zimmerman’s injuries don’t need to be life threatening to justify his use of force. The law doesn’t require you to sustain serious injuries before defending yourself, that rather defeats the entire point of self-defense.
Rather, the situation Zimmerman was in must have put him in reasonable fear of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm (strictly speaking, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn’t the case). He’s said that this was Martin threatening him and trying to get his pistol. It also could be being pinned and pummeled, though that’s not what Zimmerman says led him to fire.
Zimmerman’s injuries are evidence that he was in a situation where he faced a threat to his life or body. They aren’t the self-defense claim itself.
I guess we no longer call it the Dio Show - now it is the Fear Itself Show.
Regards,
Shodan
In Florida, a broken nose is, as a matter of law, sufficient injury to permit lethal force to be used.
That analysis, though it comes from Illinois and Indiana, was added to Florida law when it was quoted with approval by Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472 (Fl. DCA 1974).
THAT is how self-defense with lethal force works.
Do you disagree? If so, bring your cite. If not, quit claiming that Zimmerman’s injuries are not legally sufficient to sustain a claim of self-defense.
In Florida, can a jury legally conclude that a broken nose does not justify lethal force?
Try to respond to the claim being made:
Zimmerman’s injuries are not factually sufficient to sustain a claim that Zimmerman is telling the truth about what happened that night (and in fact are more than sufficient to prove that he is not), therefore no one should believe his claims that the threats to his life were present, because he is not credible.
Yeah, I don’t understand this cite. It seems to say that the determination is up to the jury. The only mention of broken bones is in the same sentence as broken skin.
So if this decision proves that a broken nose is “sufficient injury to permit lethal force to be used,” then it also proves that a paper cut is as well.
Obviously, no one thinks that the mere fact that Zimmerman was not hospitalized in danger of death is what invalidates self-defense. We all understand that there are situations where one can use lethal force in self-defense without being injured–for an obvious example, if someone is pointing a gun at me and I shoot them first, I’m legally in the clear even if I don’t get injured at all.
The claim being made here is that Zimmerman is a liar, because he claimed that certain things DID in fact happen to him (being punched in the face 25 to 30 times, having his head slammed into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly), not just that he was in danger of potentially havinv those things happen to him. And the things that Zimmerman claims DID happen, actually did NOT happen, because it’s biologically impossible for them to have happened and produced the photos and medical reports of Zimmerman with very minor outpatient injuries. Based on that, we can evaluate many aspects of Zimmerman’s credibility, including whether we should believe his own account of what Martin was doing and whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life as a result.
A citation as to what an Indiana court thinks “aggravated battery” may be and a lot of monkeys dancing to accordions trying to link that to Florida self-defense law has absolutely nothing to do with why the fact that Zimmerman’s wounds were minor is relevant, even if I were to grant the bizarre chain of logic used to link the one case to the other.
Whether a broken nose justifies lethal force is irrelevant to this case, isn’t it?
The level of violence that justifies the force is the violence that the person is *avoiding *by using the force. Zimmerman’s claim is that he was avoiding (a) having his head further slammed against the concrete; (b) having his face smothered again; and © having Martin grab his gun and shoot him.
The relevance of the broken nose to this case is whether-- assuming you discredit Zimmerman’s claims about the rest–it is sufficient to prove that Zimmerman could have been in reasonable fear of further sufficient injury to justify lethal force.
Right?
Yes.
And that testimony from a prosecution witness!
No, it isn’t.
That is medical testimony, and it says his injuries could have been produced in the way he describes. There’s no reason his life had to be in danger, that’s not the requirement, and it never has been. It’s quite possible to be entitled to use lethal force in self defence when there is, in fact, no actual threat. There only needs to be reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and proof that there was no such threat is not proof that there was not reasonable fear.
If someone has been injured, is having their head bashed against the ground, and has been ignored whilst calling for help - all things that are entirely consistent with the evidence given so far - he has reason to be in that level of fear.
He had at least one broken bone and several cuts. It is entirely possible he was punched and slammed repeatedly. You have, quite literally, no justification to say he’s lying here. You are, to use the vernacular, pulling it out of your arse. You are relying solely on emotion to make your case, and hoping that if you squeal long and loud enough it will hide the fact that you have no basis whatsoever for your claims.
Zimmerman’s wounds were not minor. You’ve just seen the citation from Bricker that they may be considered as great bodily harm. Anything beyond mere bruising can reach that standard, including broken bones and cuts, both of which Zimmerman suffered. You have photographic proof of the cuts, and multiple witness statements and testimony, including more than one medical professional, that his nose may have been broken. You simply can’t go from that to claiming as fact that his injuries were minor.
Also, pretending that Florida caselaw is “monkeys dancing with accordions” is fucking stupid. I guess your understanding of the law is about as good as your understanding of fighting.
He can certainly claim that the jury should not find them to be serious. He needs to stop claiming that the jury HAS to find them not serious.