Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

[B_J 2,752]

None of those stories or links have proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that Zimmerman's story is exactly what happened.

You're right, I disagree with you, so I must be an idiot. Of course.

I'm not positive, but I don't think Zimmerman has to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. I think it's the same standard as civil cases. But again, I'm not sure.

[xebec 195]

Thanks a bunch. That means so much. Your approval is everything to me.

You miss the point- and you give yourself far too much credit. It never occured to me to approve or disapprove of some ill-informed poster. But some people take the issue of being armed quite seriously, and the misinformation posted simply needed to be addressed.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I'm not positive, but I don't think Zimmerman has to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. I think it's the same standard as civil cases. But again, I'm not sure.

I wasn't really talking about what he has to prove. I was simply saying that I have reasons to believe the story didn't go down the way he said it did. I certainly don't think that makes me stupid, as was implied.

[Karee 4,191]

I'm not positive, but I don't think Zimmerman has to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. I think it's the same standard as civil cases. But again, I'm not sure.

Criminal trial must be unaninmous.

Civil trial only a majority.

[B_J 2,752]

Criminal trial must be unaninmous.

Civil trial only a majority.

But I think the case isn't even supposed to go to trial. If the judge rules that, by the preponderance of the evidence (not reasonable doubt) that it was self-defense, then Zimmerman would be immune from prosecution. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman, but it's not reasonable doubt. But, again, I'm not positive on this.

But,even if this is the right thing to do, I don't think the judge would be courageous enough to do it.

[웃 910]

But I think the case isn't even supposed to go to trial. If the judge rules that, by the preponderance of the evidence (not reasonable doubt) that it was self-defense, then Zimmerman would be immune from prosecution. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman, but it's not reasonable doubt. But, again, I'm not positive on this.

But,even if this is the right thing to do, I don't think the judge would be courageous enough to do it.

You guys have strange definitions of self defense.

Here are a few situations where I believe you have reasonable right to resort to that last option of murder:

1) Someone is approaching you with a chainsaw (and you still try to communicate with them from a distance, with gun out)

2) Someone is approaching you with a baseball bat, a gun in their hip, and looks raging mad

3) You are at a red light with your kid in the back seat, a man smashes your skull in with brass knuckles, and yanks you out of the car

4) Someone breaks into your home

Every situation above the person using deadly force is clearly the victim where the problem came to them and there was no escaping from it. Where doing nothing would have left you at the morgue or put your family in danger.

Zimmerman is held to a higher standard because he was a neighborhood pretend police officer. Zimmerman is in a tough spot because he instigated everything from A to Z.

Police were called by him. They had his number. They advised him not to follow Martin. They were minutes away.

Zimmerman profiled blacks in the neighborhood and had a history of calling 911 every few days so he might have been a little cuckoo and racist.

He has the criminal record of domestic violence and resisting arrest and attacking a police officer.

He was the one on narcotics ("Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects including agitation in a minority of patients")

The incident was clearly preventable and avoidable. And on top of that, Zimmerman was not in danger of losing his life. Not even close. He had no reasonable right to use deadly force.

It is amazing the correlation between the far right, racism, and defending Zimmerman as the innocent victim that was only using self defense because he was about to die.

"Many have asserted that in Florida anyone who believes he is in danger can use deadly force, no matter how unreasonable his belief. These perceptions of the law are wrong. As compared with other states, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is neither extreme nor an outlier.

In Florida, as in most states, a person claiming self-defense must show that he (1) reasonably believed that such force was (2) necessary to protect himself against (3) the imminent and (4) unlawful use of force by another. The person claiming self-defense usually cannot be the initial aggressor. And to use deadly force in Florida, as Mr. Zimmerman did, a person must also reasonably believe that the aggressor threatened him with death, great bodily injury, or intended to commit a forcible felony (e.g., rape, robbery or kidnapping).

In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat."

http://online.wsj.co...0609562008.html

Edited May 18, 2012 by ☠

[B_J 2,752]

You guys have strange definitions of self defense.

Here are a few situations where I believe you have reasonable right to resort to that last option of murder:

1) Someone is approaching you with a chainsaw (and you still try to communicate with them from a distance, with gun out)

2) Someone is approaching you with a baseball bat, a gun in their hip, and looks raging mad

3) You are at a red light with your kid in the back seat, a man smashes your skull in with brass knuckles, and yanks you out of the car

4) Someone breaks into your home

Every situation above the person using deadly force is clearly the victim where the problem came to them and there was no escaping from it. Where doing nothing would have left you at the morgue or put your family in danger.

Zimmerman is held to a higher standard because he was a neighborhood pretend police officer. Zimmerman is in a tough spot because he instigated everything from A to Z.

Police were called by him. They had his number. They advised him not to follow Martin. They were minutes away.

Zimmerman profiled blacks in the neighborhood and had a history of calling 911 every few days so he might have been a little cuckoo and racist.

He has the criminal record of domestic violence and resisting arrest and attacking a police officer.

He was the one on narcotics ("Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects including agitation in a minority of patients")

The incident was clearly preventable and avoidable. And on top of that, Zimmerman was not in danger of losing his life. Not even close. He had no reasonable right to use deadly force.

It is amazing the correlation between the far right, racism, and defending Zimmerman as the innocent victim that was only using self defense because he was about to die.

"Many have asserted that in Florida anyone who believes he is in danger can use deadly force, no matter how unreasonable his belief. These perceptions of the law are wrong. As compared with other states, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is neither extreme nor an outlier.

In Florida, as in most states, a person claiming self-defense must show that he (1) reasonably believed that such force was (2) necessary to protect himself against (3) the imminent and (4) unlawful use of force by another. The person claiming self-defense usually cannot be the initial aggressor. And to use deadly force in Florida, as Mr. Zimmerman did, a person must also reasonably believe that the aggressor threatened him with death, great bodily injury, or intended to commit a forcible felony (e.g., rape, robbery or kidnapping).

In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat."

http://online.wsj.co...0609562008.html

Just going from memory, I think when 911 operator told him not to follow, he said okay, and then they began talking about where he would meet the police. So, are you saying that he ignored the advice and continued to follow Martin and then attacked him?

I don't see why you won't even acknowledge the possibility that the evidence on Zimmerman's face of a clear beating could possibly mean it was self-defense.

[Dakine10 5,452]

But I think the case isn't even supposed to go to trial. If the judge rules that, by the preponderance of the evidence (not reasonable doubt) that it was self-defense, then Zimmerman would be immune from prosecution. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman, but it's not reasonable doubt. But, again, I'm not positive on this.

But,even if this is the right thing to do, I don't think the judge would be courageous enough to do it.

I think you mean "stand your ground", not "self defenense". If the judge finds that stand your ground applies, Zimmerman would be acquitted. If not, Zimmerman will go to trial and can still claim he acted in self defense.

[웃 910]

Just going from memory, I think when 911 operator told him not to follow, he said okay, and then they began talking about where he would meet the police. So, are you saying that he ignored the advice and continued to follow Martin and then attacked him?

I don't see why you won't even acknowledge the possibility that the evidence on Zimmerman's face of a clear beating could possibly mean it was self-defense.

1) Yes, the officer on audio says "are you following him? WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"

2) Yes, George "they always get away" Zimmerman continued to follow Martin

3) I don't know who attacked who first...Probably Martin pushed the maniac first because he got unreasonably close to him...Who knows.

There is no such thing as self-defense free pass murder for getting into a scuffle when you initiate the contact. Cops were a few minutes away. Probably fire trucks and ambulances too...

People get into fights every day in every town across America. It is not reasonable, sane, or appropriate to shoot someone while fighting. That is absurd. And even more so when you consider that tough guy super cop Zimmerman was the one that picked the fight.

[SMOKE 1,426]

In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat."

how about when the aggressor has the victim mounted & is raining blows down on them.

It is amazing the correlation between the far right, racism, and defending Zimmerman as the innocent victim that was only using self defense because he was about to die.

is that ####### even in the article or did you forget to acknowledge an edit?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

caught a news report on nbc this morning that mentioned the Martin autopsy showed mariajuana in his blood .

hmmmm

Marijuana gives you cancer and makes you stupid, not violent.

[natty bumppo 297]

You guys have strange definitions of self defense.

Here are a few situations where I believe you have reasonable right to resort to that last option of murder:

1) Someone is approaching you with a chainsaw (and you still try to communicate with them from a distance, with gun out)

2) Someone is approaching you with a baseball bat, a gun in their hip, and looks raging mad

3) You are at a red light with your kid in the back seat, a man smashes your skull in with brass knuckles, and yanks you out of the car

4) Someone breaks into your home

Every situation above the person using deadly force is clearly the victim where the problem came to them and there was no escaping from it. Where doing nothing would have left you at the morgue or put your family in danger.

nice lines of bs ...

1) the "victim" already has distance. simply leave if possible.

not sure if a perp can break any track & field records running with a chainsaw. if zero avenue of escape is possible or actually threatened ... stop the threat.

this doesn't even cover if the person approaching with the chainsaw is supposed to have the saw, the saw is running (they are kinda loud) , and the person is wearing ppe (think ... tree service person, yard care, etc).

2) the person "looks raging mad" and has posed zero threat. you'd blaze away?

Lets see ... the person could be a baseball player who just had a "mighty casey" moment ... or heaven forbid a pissed off LEO who pulled you over for making them spill/drop their coffee & donut

3) let's see ... you've just had your skull smashed in and yanked out of the car. are you even still conscious or alive? if yes ... stop the threat.

4) someone breaks into your home. this varies state to state. some states have a requirement to retreat and try to avoid the confrontation. use of deadly force only if trapped and/or physically threatened. other states have castle doctrine ... the perp has just exited the gene pool

[웃 910]

2) the person "looks raging mad" and has posed zero threat. you'd blaze away?

Lets see ... the person could be a baseball player who just had a "mighty casey" moment ... or heaven forbid a pissed off LEO who pulled you over for making them spill/drop their coffee & donut

No, I'd hold out my hand with a smile and politely introduce myself to the guy charging at me with a baseball bat ready to make a homerun out of my skull!

Edited May 18, 2012 by ☠

[B_J 2,752]

1) Yes, the officer on audio says "are you following him? WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"

And Zimmerman replied, "okay" and they began talking about where Zimmerman would meet the police. Are you saying that Zimmerman then continued looking for Martin and attacked him?

2) Yes, George "they always get away" Zimmerman continued to follow Martin

And you know this how?

3) I don't know who attacked who first...Probably Martin pushed the maniac first because he got unreasonably close to him...Who knows.

You're right, who knows? So why do you assume that it was Zimmerman? There is no evidence to show that Zimmerman attacked Martin; there does seem to be evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There is no such thing as self-defense free pass murder for getting into a scuffle when you initiate the contact. Cops were a few minutes away. Probably fire trucks and ambulances too...

People get into fights every day in every town across America. It is not reasonable, sane, or appropriate to shoot someone while fighting. That is absurd. And even more so when you consider that tough guy super cop Zimmerman was the one that picked the fight.

And how do you know that Zimmerman initiated the contact? You seem to have this all figured out; why bother even having a trial?

[웃 910]

Confrontations are expected when you are a police officer and they happen all the time.

Let's say a professional officer was Zimmerman...The officer calls for backup and then approaches the kid...The kid swings on the officer....What does the officer do?

I'll tell you, he uses his training to restrain Martin and if he is "getting pounded" he uses more training and experience to try to gain control of Martin.

He might try for pepper spray.

I can tell you right now the farthest thought from this exciting confrontation (probably most excitement in months) would have been "I have to get my gun, and kill this guy."

Even if it was a 20 year old rookie female officer, she would have been tougher than the pathetic Zimmerman.

He is an embarrassment to mall cops and neighborhood watchers across the nation.