Martin/Zimmerman thread

Its going to take more than that....

 

A bloody nose doesnt equal lethal force....

 

Id want to see Martin HANDS.... If he was kicking the shit out of zimmerman to the point of zimmerman thinking he was about to die, Martins hands will be bruised and battered.

 

It may take a little more than that, but from just what is in the public domain there is more than that. Put some injuries together with the multiple eyewitness testimony that sure seems to put Martin on top of Zimmerman for a fairly extended period of time before the shot (over a minute), and the State's case sucks IMO. A minute and a half or so is a long time for someone to be on top of someone else in a fight, and people don't usually get beaten up while sitting on top of their opponent. Nor do they scream for help repeatedly--if the evidence points to Zimmerman being on the bottom as it appears to, no jury is going to believe it's anyone but him screaming for help. Over and over until finally he shoots. And as far as the hands go, remember Zimmerman said Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk. That wouldn't likely leave marks on Martin's hands, as he would have been holding Zimmerman's head, either between his hands, or by Zimmerman's hair or ears. Oh and did I mention the affidavit the prosecutor filed is weak sauce indeed? I don't know what procedure they use in FL to challenge them, but there is no way that affidavit supports a charge of murder, even if everything in it is true (and parts of it almost certainly aren't true). Alan Dershowitz called it unethical. The State really overreached here, perhaps to try to intimidate Zimmerman into copping a plea to manslaughter, or perhaps the special prosecutor wanted to bask in the glow of adulation from the racial grievance industry, or both, but it sucks ass any way you slice it IMO. There may be enough there to support a manslaughter charge and try to let a jury sort it out, but murder is a joke.

Its going to take more than that....

 

A bloody nose doesnt equal lethal force....

 

Id want to see Martin HANDS.... If he was kicking the shit out of zimmerman to the point of zimmerman thinking he was about to die, Martins hands will be bruised and battered.

 

 

Erik, you're not up on our states wonderful SYG law. Check this story and get back to me...

If Zimmerman's nose was broken the damage would still be visible no??

Erik, you're not up on our states wonderful SYG law. Check this story and get back to me...

 

 

Sounds like the correct outcome to me.

 

Difference- The dead person WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED in ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. (rather than just looking "suspicious").

 

The Shooter was the VICTIM of that illegal activity (rather than just the neighborhood busybody)

 

The dead person HAD A DEADLY WEAPON (a bag of metal when swung, is lethal. A bag of skittles isnt.)

 

 

Stand your ground has NOTHING to do with this case. And its nothing outrageous.... EVEN CALIFORNIA HAS a "Stand your ground" type law. WHY? We hate guns? BECAUSE ITS COMMON SENSE!

 

At common law Self Defense included the requirement that the defendant TRY to flee the confrontation. This was a pretty reasonable request when the weapon of the day was a knife or club. Fast forward to the modern age, where the weapon is a GUN- YOU CANT RUN AWAY FROM A BULLET.... By the time you try, YOURE DEAD.

 

So your choice is, FIGHT and be charged with a crime, or try to run away so that you can legally defend yourself and die in the process. NEITHER OUTCOME MAKES SENSE.

 

So the law has changed to address that technological advancement.

 

 

 

The person who had the right to STAND HIS GROUND was MARTIN.... And he could legally continue to beat the shit out of Zimmerman until he no longer had the gun.. So long as Zimmerman had that gun, HE POSSESSED the ABILITY TO USE UNLAWFUL LETHAL FORCE ON MARTIN.... AND MARTIN HAD THE RIGHT TO RESIST IT.

The person who had the right to STAND HIS GROUND was MARTIN.... And he could legally continue to beat the shit out of Zimmerman until he no longer had the gun.. So long as Zimmerman had that gun, HE POSSESSED the ABILITY TO USE UNLAWFUL LETHAL FORCE ON MARTIN.... AND MARTIN HAD THE RIGHT TO RESIST IT.

 

So Z didn't have the right to defend himself after he was getting the shit beat out of him according to your theory?

So Z didn't have the right to defend himself after he was getting the shit beat out of him according to your theory?

 

 

NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE.

 

 

 

I have a gun (which I usually do)... I start a fist fight... Im getting my ass kicked... I shoot the guy who is kicking my ass... Im going to prison.

 

Otherwise what we've done is created a simple formula for sociopaths to commit murder and get away with it. 1. Start fight, 2. Lose fight, 3. Shoot. 4. Claim "I was afraid he'd take my gun and use it against me."

 

 

There are only a couple of possible scenarios to this situation, and in all but one (which I believe is UNLIKELY because it doesnt make sense, and when things dont make sense its usually because they arent true) Zimmerman is guilty of a crime.

 

Scenario one- Zimmerman follows Martin (we know this is true.) Zimmerman illegally confronts Martin physically (he puts his hands on him, or threatens him WITH the gun). Martin resists Zimmermans unlawful detention (this is called self defense). Martin gets the upper hand. Zimmerman shoots Martin- THEY BOTH cannot legally have a simultaneous right to LETHAL self defense. Zimmerman is the aggressor, Martin is the victim. Zimmerman maintained the ability to inflict lethal force and the apparent intent to do so, throughout the confrontation. Zimmerman is guilty.

 

Scenario two- Zimmerman follows Martin. Zimmerman confronts Martin verbally- Martin ignores Zimmerman or tells him to go fcuk himself. Zimmerman doesnt back down. Martin flees Zimmerman. Zimmerman gives chase. Martin turns to confront his pursuer (This is called self defense). A struggle ensues- probably over Zimmerman's gun... Zimmerman shoots Martin- Zimmerman is guilty. (btw, I think this is the most likely given the facts).

 

Scenario three- Zimmerman follows Martin. The police tell him to stop. He gets agitated and says "They always fcuking get away". But despite his agitation he stops following Martin. He then puts the entire situation out of his mind, He decides to go home. But first he must get out of the car to read the street sign so he can navigate the few blocks back. He pulls his car over to the curb, gets out and then decides to walk back to his home. Via the neighbors back yard. Then Martin Jumps out of the bushes and slams his head into a concrete reinforced lawn. Fearing for his life, he draws his trusty pistola and shoots him dead. Good shoot... And it makes absolutely no fcuking sense.

 

 

Whether its murder or manslaughter is up to a jury. But the fact that Zimmerman THOUGHT he was defending self is irrelevant to the charge. Either its MURDER, OR ITS MANSLAUGHTER. And he either HAD A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (for either charge) or HE DIDNT.

 

I think Zimmerman thought he was making a "citizens arrest." Citizens arrests have been the darling of the Libertarian, gun guy, cop wannabee types for 10 years.

 

Heres the deal.... You may THINK you have a right to make a citizens arrest. YOU MAY even HAVE a "right" to make a citizens arrest...

 

DONT DO IT. Its a ONE WAY TICKET TO FUCKED UP.

NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE.

 

 

 

I have a gun (which I usually do)... I start a fist fight... Im getting my ass kicked... I shoot the guy who is kicking my ass... Im going to prison.

 

Otherwise what we've done is created a simple formula for sociopaths to commit murder and get away with it. 1. Start fight, 2. Lose fight, 3. Shoot. 4. Claim "I was afraid he'd take my gun and use it against me."

 

 

There are only a couple of possible scenarios to this situation, and in all but one (which I believe is UNLIKELY because it doesnt make sense, and when things dont make sense its usually because they arent true) Zimmerman is guilty of a crime.

 

Scenario one- Zimmerman follows Martin (we know this is true.) Zimmerman illegally confronts Martin physically (he puts his hands on him, or threatens him WITH the gun). Martin resists Zimmermans unlawful detention (this is called self defense). Martin gets the upper hand. Zimmerman shoots Martin- THEY BOTH cannot legally have a simultaneous right to LETHAL self defense. Zimmerman is the aggressor, Martin is the victim. Zimmerman maintained the ability to inflict lethal force and the apparent intent to do so, throughout the confrontation. Zimmerman is guilty.

 

Scenario two- Zimmerman follows Martin. Zimmerman confronts Martin verbally- Martin ignores Zimmerman or tells him to go fcuk himself. Zimmerman doesnt back down. Martin flees Zimmerman. Zimmerman gives chase. Martin turns to confront his pursuer (This is called self defense). A struggle ensues- probably over Zimmerman's gun... Zimmerman shoots Martin- Zimmerman is guilty. (btw, I think this is the most likely given the facts).

 

Scenario three- Zimmerman follows Martin. The police tell him to stop. He gets agitated and says "They always fcuking get away". But despite his agitation he stops following Martin. He then puts the entire situation out of his mind, He decides to go home. But first he must get out of the car to read the street sign so he can navigate the few blocks back. He pulls his car over to the curb, gets out and then decides to walk back to his home. Via the neighbors back yard. Then Martin Jumps out of the bushes and slams his head into a concrete reinforced lawn. Fearing for his life, he draws his trusty pistola and shoots him dead. Good shoot... And it makes absolutely no fcuking sense.

 

 

Whether its murder or manslaughter is up to a jury. But the fact that Zimmerman THOUGHT he was defending self is irrelevant to the charge. Either its MURDER, OR ITS MANSLAUGHTER. And he either HAD A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (for either charge) or HE DIDNT.

 

I think Zimmerman thought he was making a "citizens arrest." Citizens arrests have been the darling of the Libertarian, gun guy, cop wannabee types for 10 years.

 

Heres the deal.... You may THINK you have a right to make a citizens arrest. YOU MAY even HAVE a "right" to make a citizens arrest...

 

DONT DO IT. Its a ONE WAY TICKET TO FUCKED UP.

 

But if Martin was the first to throw the punches would Z have the right to self defense with the gun?

 

But if Martin was the first to throw the punches would Z have the right to self defense with the gun?

 

 

I'm curious to see what RD says but, if I interpret what he has said previously, no. That's because there is no way he should have ever been in a position to be assaulted by Martin without doing someone 'wrong' first. We know that Z followed M with a gun; that means Z cannot claim the self defense excuse.

But if Martin was the first to throw the punches would Z have the right to self defense with the gun?

 

RD has stated elsewhere that a gun is not considered appropriate self defense for one man vs. another, and listed a few possible exceptions (e.g. multiple assailants, man vs. old lady).

 

I'm not sure that that rule would hold up 100% of the time. A street fight has no rules, ethics, etc...they don't necessarily end with the KO of one person.

 

Also the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation was a developing situation where Zimmerman did the wrong things. A surprise street encounter 1 on 1 with a violent mugger/thug should have a different set of rules, me thinks.

In my eyes if witnesses testify that Zimmerman was being sat on for a length of time AND being beaten and did NOT pull his gun immediately ,to me anyways, that shows some restraint by zimmerman - he didnt just whip his pistol out at first chance of Martin touching him. I think that shows his intention was NOT to deliberately get into a fight just so he could shoot someone. He of course didnt show restraint following Martin.

 

If it was shown to me as a juror that Zim didnt shoot until being well into being beaten then I would be less likely to care how he found himself under Martin (following him lawfully or not) and care how it went down once the fight took place... This assumes the witness was correct that Martin had Zimmerman down for a while and Zimmerman shouted for help.

 

I think there will be a difference to what the law says you should think (negatively) about Zimmerman getting himself into that position and how a juror will look at him being beaten for a period of time before shooting.

 

Pulling a gun after being beaten for a while and shouting for help, to me could be considered justified to a juror.

If someone pops you in the nose and you happen to be carrying a gun, you can't pull your piece and shoot them, even if the blow breaks your nose and knocks you down. But if the aggressor then follows things up by getting on top of you and proceeding to administer a beating, things get a lot fuzzier. How big are the two guys? Where are the blows landing and what damage are they doing? How long does the beating last? These are critical facts in a situation like this. In most states I don't think deadly force is limited to situations in which one reasonably fears death; fear of substantial bodily harm will also suffice. I know that's true here in TN, but I'm not sure about FL. With all due respect to RD, his scenarios don't seem to allow for the possibility that Z's side of the story (as told by his father and as supported to some extent by the 911 calls) is true. That is, that Z had broken off contact with Martin and Martin confronted Z and eventually hit him and then got on top of him and started beating his head on the sidewalk. Saying "a struggle ensued" is avoidance language, and laughable language to use in an affidavit in a murder case. Someone intitiated the struggle, and who that was is a very important fact. As I said earlier, if the facts indicate that Martin was on top of Z for over a minute during the struggle, and indicate that Z had some injuries, the prosecution is going to have a very, very tough time convicting him of anything IMO, and they damn sure aren't going to convict him of murder.

If someone pops you in the nose and you happen to be carrying a gun, you can't pull your piece and shoot them, even if the blow breaks your nose and knocks you down. But if the aggressor then follows things up by getting on top of you and proceeding to administer a beating, things get a lot fuzzier. How big are the two guys? Where are the blows landing and what damage are they doing? How long does the beating last? These are critical facts in a situation like this. In most states I don't think deadly force is limited to situations in which one reasonably fears death; fear of substantial bodily harm will also suffice. I know that's true here in TN, but I'm not sure about FL. With all due respect to RD, his scenarios don't seem to allow for the possibility that Z's side of the story (as told by his father and as supported to some extent by the 911 calls) is true. That is, that Z had broken off contact with Martin and Martin confronted Z and eventually hit him and then got on top of him and started beating his head on the sidewalk. Saying "a struggle ensued" is avoidance language, and laughable language to use in an affidavit in a murder case. Someone intitiated the struggle, and who that was is a very important fact. As I said earlier, if the facts indicate that Martin was on top of Z for over a minute during the struggle, and indicate that Z had some injuries, the prosecution is going to have a very, very tough time convicting him of anything IMO, and they damn sure aren't going to convict him of murder.

 

If someone is on you for over a minute pounding your head into concrete, then I don't think you are going to go to the police station for questioning right after the incident...you are going to the hospital with severe head trauma, or you are going to the morgue. The videos we have seen of Z at the police station being questioned, don't show the types of injuries one might expect to see if one was being beaten the way Z claims he was. I'm not saying that there may not have been a struggle, but I don't think Z was getting his ass kicked the way he claims. His face did not appear to be injured and the so called "gash" that could be seen after video enhancement, one would expect him to have needed stitches and there would have been visible blood on this clothing (that freakin "enhanced" video showed a "gash" several inches long for pete's sake...I remember busting my head open on a rock as a child and I though I was going to bleed to death...the "gash" on my head was maybe 1/4 inch which required about 4 stitches). Plus without hair, one would expect scratches to the head/ears/face consistent with one grabbing something on the head to gain leverage to pull the head back and forth in order to slam it. IMHO the only way for Z's argument that he was in a life and death struggle, to be credible, is if he has medical records to back up his story...I'm not sure those exist since he was not apparently treated at a hospital after the altercation. It may be evidence that is yet to surface, but so far it don's appear to be the case. It just seems unlikely that Z was getting his ass kicked so thoroughly that he was losing consciousness but had no injuries consistent with the degree he claims the violence escalated to. I think he confronted TM, TM said, "leave me alone and go fcuk yourself!", they started to fight, Z about shit his pants, panicked and shot him. Not necessarily Murder 2, but not a viable self defense scenario either.

 

Now with all of that being said, its simply speculation!

If someone is on you for over a minute pounding your head into concrete, then I don't think you are going to go to the police station for questioning right after the incident...you are going to the hospital with severe head trauma, or you are going to the morgue. The videos we have seen of Z at the police station being questioned, don't show the types of injuries one might expect to see if one was being beaten the way Z claims he was. I'm not saying that there may not have been a struggle, but I don't think Z was getting his ass kicked the way he claims. His face did not appear to be injured and the so called "gash" that could be seen after video enhancement, one would expect him to have needed stitches and there would have been visible blood on this clothing (that freakin "enhanced" video showed a "gash" several inches long for pete's sake...I remember busting my head open on a rock as a child and I though I was going to bleed to death...the "gash" on my head was maybe 1/4 inch which required about 4 stitches). Plus without hair, one would expect scratches to the head/ears/face consistent with one grabbing something on the head to gain leverage to pull the head back and forth in order to slam it. IMHO the only way for Z's argument that he was in a life and death struggle, to be credible, is if he has medical records to back up his story...I'm not sure those exist since he was not apparently treated at a hospital after the altercation. It may be evidence that is yet to surface, but so far it don's appear to be the case. It just seems unlikely that Z was getting his ass kicked so thoroughly that he was losing consciousness but had no injuries consistent with the degree he claims the violence escalated to. I think he confronted TM, TM said, "leave me alone and go fcuk yourself!", they started to fight, Z about shit his pants, panicked and shot him. Not necessarily Murder 2, but not a viable self defense scenario either.

 

Now with all of that being said, its simply speculation!

 

The presence or absence of injuries will certainly be very important, but I don't think Z needs to have horrible gashes or hospital treatment to prevail; a bloody nose and bloody scrapes on the back of his head would be helpful though. If he truly had no visible injuries that would be a big problem, but if that were the case it's hard to imagine how he avoided being charged for so long. And yes, there is a lot of speculation going on--it will be interesting to see how things play out.

The presence or absence of injuries will certainly be very important, but I don't think Z needs to have horrible gashes or hospital treatment to prevail; a bloody nose and bloody scrapes on the back of his head would be helpful though. If he truly had no visible injuries that would be a big problem, but if that were the case it's hard to imagine how he avoided being charged for so long. And yes, there is a lot of speculation going on--it will be interesting to see how things play out.

 

Has anyone seen the video where they enhance the footage from the police station - the one where the cops looking at the back of Zimmermans head?

 

In the enhanced version its clear to see there is something there - it could well be a large gash - it looks bulbous and lumpy with a dark line - I think it was on CNN. I dont think the cop was looking at nothing. The video was interesting.

 

 

 

I would imagine this should help his defense.

What about that video of the Lambo owner getting pounded in the head on the pavement by police. That looked pretty brutal and I don't recall seeing that he went to the hospital before jail. If that had been some random guy pounding his head like that with no idea when he would stop then I can see pulling a gun on the guy. There has been so much disinformation in the media thus far that I don't see this being an open and shut thing. I do believe he will get in trouble but I don't see this leading to a murder conviction.

 

I would imagine this should help his defense.

 

No, no, that is what you should expect when you "profile" an innocent youth and "a struggle ensues." Did Zimmerman play lacrosse?

Those wounds look REALLY minor; especially for someone with a shaved head.

Those wounds look REALLY minor; especially for someone with a shaved head.

This.

What about that video of the Lambo owner getting pounded in the head on the pavement by police. That looked pretty brutal and I don't recall seeing that he went to the hospital before jail.

 

That is because according to the media "During the booking process, the 6’0, 200-pound suspect, in response to direct police questioning, stated he was not injured, had no complaint of pain and did not require medical attention"

Yeah but not "needing" to go to the hospital and being injured. I've broken stuff before and not gone to the hospital. I'm just saying him not going to the hospital doesn't mean that he wasn't injured. I'm not on one side or the other and I don't have all the facts but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

 

Lolsauce!

Some interesting background in here on Z and the neighborhood: Prelude to a Shooting. This reads like it could have been put together by the defense team, but it comes from a card-carrying member of the typically left-leaning MSM. So the narrative of the racial grievance industry is really breaking down now.

LOL.