Witness Testimony Reveals George Zimmerman As A Bully And Racist who was Fired for Being A Bully and a Racist

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I did not say that and you know it. Sounds more like you just gave up whilst facing logic.

No, I am also viewing the eclipse, eating dinner, and playing bilge rats.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, I am also viewing the eclipse, eating dinner, and playing bilge rats.

Is it visible right now?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is it visible right now?

Yep. About half-way across.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yep. About half-way across.

Ouch...okay Iphone screens reflect too much

Edited May 21, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That wasn't a statement by Zimmerman. The prosecution released a medical report as evidence that stated he had a black eye.

Also the only minor wound that Martin had was a finger wound that could be seen as offensive in nature.

I remember reading that Martin refused to be taken to the hospital that night which the jury will find troubling for someone who believes their life was in danger.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I remember reading that Martin refused to be taken to the hospital that night which the jury will find troubling for someone who believes their life was in danger.

Yes, that certainly will concern the jury.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, that certainly will concern the jury.

See what the solar eclipse did to me?

[PMartin37 161]

Are any of Zimmerman's injuries death threatening? He was an ex-bouncer, after all, and outweighed the kid by 50 or 100 pounds. He had no problem throwing drunk women on their arses, or picking fights with alcoholic beverage control officers.

I'm not convinced the photos of that viscious pummeling whilst he was on top of Zimmerman are going to be heavy evidence of "life in danger". No black eyes...mild nicks on the back of his head. Not buying it. I think Martin discovered Zimmerman's gun and wanted to make a play for it and Zimmerman grabbed it and shot him maybe out of reflex? Maybe out of rage? The jury will decide that.

[james&olya 1,121]

If Martin were clearly the aggressor, where is the evidence?

Though many on here try very hard to claim otherwise, a big part of that 'evidence' is the same as that responsible for many convictions and executions over the years. Martin was black!

[xebec 195]

I'm not convinced the photos of that viscious pummeling whilst he was on top of Zimmerman are going to be heavy evidence of "life in danger". No black eyes...mild nicks on the back of his head. Not buying it. I think Martin discovered Zimmerman's gun and wanted to make a play for it and Zimmerman grabbed it and shot him maybe out of reflex? Maybe out of rage? The jury will decide that.

The fact is that Zimmerman didn't need to be in a situation that was life-threatening in order to exercise deadly force in his own defense. He simply needed to be in a situation which produced reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death. Like it or not, that's the standard that must be met under Florida's self-defense statutes (and is essentially the same in every other state's statutes that I have read). The jury, if it reaches that stage, will be instructed to deliberate based on that standard. Furthermore, if what you speculate about Martin "[making] a play" for Zimmerman's gun is true, then fear of grave bodily injury or death seems a quite reasonable reaction....

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/evidence-and-ultimately-avoidable-legal-irrelevancy-released-in-trayvon-martin-case/

Evidence and “ultimately avoidable” legal irrelevancy released in Trayvon Martin case

Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 9:58pm

A trove of documents (embedded in viewer at bottom of post) was released tonight in the Trayvon Martin case. The big headline is that the police report prepared a month after the incident said it was “ultimately avoidable” if George Zimmerman never got out of the car. That’s legally irrelevant, as I’ll explain later.

First, the autopsy and other findings, summarized by The Orlando Sentinel:

The evidence — released by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey’s office late Thursday — includes a photocopy of a picture taken of George Zimmerman at the scene of the shooting. In it, he has a bloody nose.

Sanford Officer Michael Wagner pulled out his personal iPhone, he wrote in his report, and shot a photo of Zimmerman’s bloody nose. It appeared to him, Wagner wrote in his report, that Zimmerman’s nose was broken.

“I also saw that the back of Zimmerman’s head was also bloodied,” Wagner wrote.

Wagner downloaded the photo to his computer but never forwarded it to anyone else, he wrote, not until March 18, when he got word that the agency could find no photos of Zimmerman taken at the scene

Trayvon’s autopsy report is included in the released documents. In it, there is a diagram that shows the gunshot wound was approximately 3/8 inches across, and the “stippling,” powder burns that come as a result of a gunshot, was approximately 2 inches in diameter.

The burns are important because they prove the gun was fired from a very close range.

FDLE firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon’s gray sweatshirt and gray hoodie and wrote this about the gunpowder burns: “Both holes displayed residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.”

Translation: The gun was touching Trayvon’s clothing when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

The bullet went through his heart, according to the report. The Volusia County medical examiner’s office pulled from Trayvon’s body one lead bullet core and two fragments, according to a Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab report. The report also showed a small “abrasion” on one finger on the other hand.

The autopsy report says there was THC — the active chemical found in marijuana — in Trayvon’s blood and urine.

Based on this description it doesn’t appear that Zimmerman “executed” Martin as some of the inflammatory rhetoric claims, unless there are details as to bullet trajectory which would indicate the shot was from above (indicating Zimmerman no longer was on the ground).

It’s legally irrelevant that the encounter could have been avoided if Zimmerman stayed in his car. The Stand Your Ground law talks about initiating physical contact in a very specific way (emphasis mine):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) 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.

Getting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force. The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.

Even so, Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape. There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten.

These nuances will be lost in the media blitz, and you will hear how Zimmerman must be guilty because he got out of the car.

Again the caution, we know some more facts, but not all the facts.

AGAIN ......

It is undoubtedly true, in hindsight, that if George Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle there would not have been as great a chance of a conflict, but Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson says that is “legally irrelevant“:

Getting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force. The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.

Even so, Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape. There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten.

These nuances will be lost in the media blitz, and you will hear how Zimmerman must be guilty because he got out of the car.

Trayvon Martin mounted George Zimmerman and began raining strikes down on him for more than 38 seconds, despite the fact that Zimmerman was clearly beaten and cried for help 14 times during that time period.

Legally this is where self-defense law, and possibly the “stand your ground” provision that is part of that law, becomes relevant, and it is the first and only time that it is relevant for either man in this conflict.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Though many on here try very hard to claim otherwise, a big part of that 'evidence' is the same as that responsible for many convictions and executions over the years. Martin was black!

I believe in personal responsibility across the board, and when your poor judgement ends with the death of another, then you should pay the price. If Zimmerman didn't have to pull the gun to protect his life, that should be murder two. If he needed to pull the gun after being stupid, that should be felony manslaughter. However, the way Florida's law is written, he could be given immunity from both criminal and civil penalties. That is not justice in my book.

[james&olya 1,121]

I believe in personal responsibility across the board, and when your poor judgement ends with the death of another, then you should pay the price. If Zimmerman didn't have to pull the gun to protect his life, that should be murder two. If he needed to pull the gun after being stupid, that should be felony manslaughter. However, the way Florida's law is written, he could be given immunity from both criminal and civil penalties. That is not justice in my book.

Agreed!

[PMartin37 161]

Check this out. This lady claims she fired a warning shot and invoked the stand your ground law for her defense. She got 20 YEARS. If Zimmerman gets to walk after firing a warning shot into Martin's chest... hmm.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/152151485.html?cmpid=15585797

Edited May 21, 2012 by PMartin37

[xebec 195]

Check this out. This lady claims she fired a warning shot and invoked the stand your ground law for her defense. She got 20 YEARS. If Zimmerman gets to walk after firing a warning shot into Martin's chest... hmm.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/152151485.html?cmpid=15585797

From your article:

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.

Alexander was also charged with domestic battery four months after the shooting in another assault on Gray. She pleaded no contest and was sentenced to time served.

Very different cases. This woman was convicted of going to retrieve a firearm in order to re-enter the situation that caused her (claimed) fear of grave bodily harm or death... No big surprise that both her stand your ground, and self-defense claims were rejected...

Additionally, "warning shots" are for hollywood. In the real world, what this woman did was discharge a firearm in the vicinity of two children, recklessly endangering their safety. If you are in fear of grave bodily harm or death, then no "warning shot" is required.

Edited May 21, 2012 by xebec