An assault with ZERO defensive wounds? He just let him do it, and did not resist in any defensive manner...odd for a former bouncer, and someone arrested for assaulting a undercover cop.
An assault with ZERO defensive wounds? He just let him do it, and did not resist in any defensive manner...odd for a former bouncer, and someone arrested for assaulting a undercover cop.
The physical evidence doesn't show Martin assaulted Zimmerman. The physical evidence is consistent with a number of scenarios.
Even if a jury decided Martin did commit assault, that isn't sufficient grounds for killing in self-defense.
As far as "beaten to death", in a trial that would need to be established, that its reasonable based on the evidence.
I don't know how that would come out.
.
An assault with ZERO defensive wounds? He just let him do it, and did not resist in any defensive manner...odd for a former bouncer, and someone arrested for assaulting a undercover cop.
Lucky he didn't. All the evidence points to self defense and you still want to execute him. Can you imagine the furor if both men had offensive and defensive wounds so that the story wasn't so verifiable?
I mean for God's sake we have eye witness testimony and physical evidence and the what if squad is still at it trying to convict him unjustly.
If he did the crime, prove it and he'll do the time. I don't think it can be proven, and certainly not to the degree that Florida law requires.
Frankly it's not even clear to me what sequence of events that night could've negated the self-defense claim.
I have a hard time even imagining a scenario or set of GZ actions which could both fit the known evidence, and make what he did a crime.
Frankly it's not even clear to me what sequence of events that night could've negated the self-defense claim.
I have a hard time even imagining a scenario or set of GZ actions which could both fit the known evidence, and make what he did a crime.
Lucky he didn't. All the evidence points to self defense and you still want to execute him. Can you imagine the furor if both men had offensive and defensive wounds so that the story wasn't so verifiable?
I mean for God's sake we have eye witness testimony and physical evidence and the what if squad is still at it trying to convict him unjustly.
If he did the crime, prove it and he'll do the time. I don't think it can be proven, and certainly not to the degree that Florida law requires.
Grossly negligent behavior + killing somebody = a crime
If you want to take it a step further you have to realize that he made a conscious decision to kill and that is murder by definition.
He absolutely didn't have to kill him to end the confrontation, but he did anyway.
Everybody should just shut the fuck up and let GZ take the stand and prove his innocence if he can.
Everybody should just shut the fuck up and let GZ take the stand and prove his innocence if he can.
Grossly negligent behavior + killing somebody = a crime
If you want to take it a step further you have to realize that he made a conscious decision to kill and that is murder by definition.
He absolutely didn't have to kill him to end the confrontation, but he did anyway.
Everybody should just shut the fuck up and let GZ take the stand and prove his innocence if he can.
You are so consistently full of fail, I just can't even wrap my mind around it.
Grossly negligent behavior + killing somebody = a crime
If you want to take it a step further you have to realize that he made a conscious decision to kill and that is murder by definition.
He absolutely didn't have to kill him to end the confrontation, but he did anyway.
Everybody should just shut the fuck up and let GZ take the stand and prove his innocence if he can.
Where do you have that he intended to kill TM?
He shot TM; many people believe that a person can take a hit and still live.
the location of the shot is what killed him; had the shot nailed a lung or rib; TM would be alive.
GZ does not have to take the stand; the TM crowd want him to so they can tear him apart with inconsistencies in statements.
He does not need to prove his innocence; the state has to prove his guilt.
Big difference.
You really have no fucking clue how our justice system works do you? Quit showing your stupidity and just stop talking already.There's legal precedent for murder cases being decided based on the assumed knowledge that your actions will result in the person's death.
Any time you shoot somebody you have to assume they could die.
And yes, he does have to prove his innocence because as of now he's guilty. We have the body, murder weapon and the only thing keeping it from being open/shut is his story. If and when his story is proven to be bullshit there will be nothing else keeping the murder conviction away.
There's legal precedent for murder cases being decided based on the assumed knowledge that your actions will result in the person's death.
Any time you shoot somebody you have to assume they could die.
And yes, he does have to prove his innocence because as of now he's guilty. We have the body, murder weapon and the only thing keeping it from being open/shut is his story. If and when his story is proven to be bullshit there will be nothing else keeping the murder conviction away.
Me thinks it's a tunnel through his empty head that is to blameYou profile states Dallas; however, there must be a tunnel through the center of the earth at you location.
You apparently do not understand how the US concept of justice works.
It is not the European or Chinese style.
Repeat without using logical. That is unacceptable inference.GZ's "story" is not the only thing holding a murder conviction at bay.
In fact even if GZ had become a vegetable from the assault and was completely incapable of offering any sort of account of what had happened, or had died, the police and investigators would have pieced it together as a case of self-defense.
In fact, in many ways it would be even more clear cut because a live GZ walking and breathing makes for a much better political football and object of ignorant, vengeful hatred.
Remove GZ's account from the picture entirely and just look at what the physical evidence and eye-witness testimony says:
1.) Party A was seen on top of Party B moments before the gunshot by the only really viable, close eye-witness.
2.) That eye-witness says he saw Party A either punching Party B while astride him, or holding him down with his arms. He said he was completely confident as to who was on top and who was being held down, and his feeling was that it was Party B that was screaming, though he wasn't positive.
3.) Party B had cuts and lacerations all around both the front and back of his head, as well as a broken nose. Party A's only wounds were an apparently offensive wound on one finger, and the gun shot wound. This gives us insight into which physical action the eye witness saw Party A doing to Party B, and whether he was right about who he thought was screaming. It is logical to assume that it was Party B screaming, because of the wounds. It is logical to assume Party A was beating Party B rather than merely holding him down, because of said injuries.
4.) Ballistics are consistent with Party A being on top of, and extremely close to Party B at time of gunshot. This matches eyewitness testimony, and reinforces ongoing beating and self-defense gunshot.
5.) Party B had been the first person to contact law enforcement that night, and was attempting to meet up with them. Party B had desired the presence and intervention of law enforcement that evening.
If you cut through all the horse shit, the racial narrative by Crump, the weeping parents, the pictures of Trayvon at 12 years old, or 8 years old in a peewee football uniform, or GZ's stupidly worded statements, poor memory, embellishments, lies, whatever, and just break it down to those BASIC FACTS which would be present and in many ways even more clear to an observer if GZ was catatonic, then there really can be no real doubt that this was self-defense.
GZ's "story" is not the only thing holding a murder conviction at bay.
In fact even if GZ had become a vegetable from the assault and was completely incapable of offering any sort of account of what had happened, or had died, the police and investigators would have pieced it together as a case of self-defense.
In fact, in many ways it would be even more clear cut because a live GZ walking and breathing makes for a much better political football and object of ignorant, vengeful hatred.
Remove GZ's account from the picture entirely and just look at what the physical evidence and eye-witness testimony says:
1.) Party A was seen on top of Party B moments before the gunshot by the only really viable, close eye-witness.
2.) That eye-witness says he saw Party A either punching Party B while astride him, or holding him down with his arms. He said he was completely confident as to who was on top and who was being held down, and his feeling was that it was Party B that was screaming, though he wasn't positive.
3.) Party B had cuts and lacerations all around both the front and back of his head, as well as a broken nose. Party A's only wounds were an apparently offensive wound on one finger, and the gun shot wound. This gives us insight into which physical action the eye witness saw Party A doing to Party B, and whether he was right about who he thought was screaming. It is logical to assume that it was Party B screaming, because of the wounds. It is logical to assume Party A was beating Party B rather than merely holding him down, because of said injuries.
4.) Ballistics are consistent with Party A being on top of, and extremely close to Party B at time of gunshot. This matches eyewitness testimony, and reinforces ongoing beating and self-defense gunshot.
5.) Party B had been the first person to contact law enforcement that night, and was attempting to meet up with them. Party B had desired the presence and intervention of law enforcement that evening.
If you cut through all the horse shit, the racial narrative by Crump, the weeping parents, the pictures of Trayvon at 12 years old, or 8 years old in a peewee football uniform, or GZ's stupidly worded statements, poor memory, embellishments, lies, whatever, and just break it down to those BASIC FACTS which would be present and in many ways even more clear to an observer if GZ was catatonic, then there really can be no real doubt that this was self-defense.
No, it is all dependent on Zimmerman's story. If it's proven he chased after and attempted to detain Trayvon after having referred to him as a fucking asshole and a fucking punk w\ no reason to think that about him it gives self defense absolutely no credence.
In fact... at that point you wouldn't be crazy to consider it a hate crime.
No, it is all dependent on Zimmerman's story. If it's proven he chased after and attempted to detain Trayvon after having referred to him as a fucking asshole and a fucking punk w\ no reason to think that about him it gives self defense absolutely no credence.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(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.
In fact... at that point you wouldn't be crazy to consider it a hate crime.