White Girl Bleed A Lot

[cannabineer]

~shifts in chair~
...she got any of that money left??
cn

 

[desert dude]

Please feel free to demonstrate how these words:

"(Unless) he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force."

Is not a duty to retreat before using force.

You are caught up in the fact that the law is commonly called "Stand Your Ground" that you aren't reading what the actual statute says. There is not a lawyer in the country that would agree with your "reading" of the provisions of the statute I quoted. Not one.

DD, the problem with the one eye-witness testimony is that he saw a portion of the conflict, left to go call the police and then when he returned, Zimmerman was already standing over a dead/dying Martin. Said Eyewitness saw none of what led to or what immediately preceeded the shooting. If a jury finds that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were in fact reasonable, I will be content with that decision, but under the law, you don't get to start a fight and because it's not going your way, shoot your way out of it unless you make an attempt to get out of the dangerous situation prior to using deadly force. The statute is pretty clear on that point, which again is why I even took the discussion down this road.

I agree, BLJ, but the part the eye witness saw completely corroborates Zimmerman and it completely jibes with the physical evidence. There is only one eye witness who saw the whole thing, Zimmerman. He has given his statement about what happened. He said Martin cold-cocked him...

I have always assumed the prosecutor would contend that Z started the fight, even though they have no evidence to back up that claim. The claim that Z assaulted Martin, thereby starting the fight, won't hold water because Martin is uninjured. Zimmerman is the only one with injuries consistent with an assault. If the prosecutor makes the claim that Z started the fight it is covered by Exception (a). It is hard (impossible) to remove yourself from a fight when you are flat on your back, taking a beating. Honestly, the only way I can see the prosecutor getting a conviction is if she can convince 12 people that Zimmerman started the fight and that Zimmerman's fear of GBH/death was unreasonable. Given the evidence I have seen I could not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of such a claim.

 

[londonfog]

I agree, BLJ, but the part the eye witness saw completely corroborates Zimmerman and it completely jibes with the physical evidence. There is only one eye witness who saw the whole thing, Zimmerman. He has given his statement about what happened. He said Martin cold-cocked him...

I have always assumed the prosecutor would contend that Z started the fight, even though they have no evidence to back up that claim. The claim that Z assaulted Martin, thereby starting the fight, won't hold water because Martin is uninjured. Zimmerman is the only one with injuries consistent with an assault. If the prosecutor makes the claim that Z started the fight it is covered by Exception (a). It is hard (impossible) to remove yourself from a fight when you are flat on your back, taking a beating. Honestly, the only way I can see the prosecutor getting a conviction is if she can convince 12 people that Zimmerman started the fight and that Zimmerman's fear of GBH/death was unreasonable. Given the evidence I have seen I could not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of such a claim.

Being told not to follow and you do is pretty conveying evidence that you are the aggressor...and statements like "these assholes always gets away" don't help...but hey as we know this was Gods plan

 

[NoDrama]

Being told not to follow and you do is pretty conveying evidence that you are the aggressor...and statements like "these assholes always gets away" don't help...but hey as we know this was Gods plan

OMG are you still relying on this BS? 911 Operators have no authority AND besides Zimmerman was NEVER told not to follow anyway, so your complete point is out the window since NONE of what you said happened, actually happened.

 

[desert dude]

Being told not to follow and you do is pretty conveying evidence that you are the aggressor...and statements like "these assholes always gets away" don't help...but hey as we know this was Gods plan

Even if you are convinced that following was instigating the fight, Zim's actions are covered under exception (a).

Zim was foolish to make statements to the press, to the police, etc. Those statements might sink him. He is not the smartest guy in Sanford, FL.

The "God's plan" stuff is boilerplate Christian dogma. It is the same thing that ministers say when explaining why a two year old drowned in a pool. It is the same reason why Pope Benedict XVI looks like Satan. If Zimmerman is convicted (or acquitted, or the charges dropped), it will be because God planned it that way. If your internet connection fails and you are unable to respond to this post, it will be because that was God's plan. If UB suddenly gets religion and becomes a traveling minister spreading the "good word" it will be because that was God's plan.

 

[londonfog]

OMG are you still relying on this BS? 911 Operators have no authority AND besides Zimmerman was NEVER told not to follow anyway, so your complete point is out the window since NONE of what you said happened, actually happened.

are you following...YES...we don't need you to do that...OK

if 911 has no authority why call ????

really would not want that as my defense...that sounds like some shit some idiot would say online

 

[desert dude]

are you following...YES...we don't need you to do that...OK

if 911 has no authority why call ????

really would not want that as my defense...that sounds like some shit some idiot would say online

Actually, the call was not placed to 911, it was placed to the non-emergency number of SPD. Even if the non-emergency dispatcher did have the authority to order Zim to not engage in lawful behavior, read the actual words, "we don't need you to do that"; that is not an order, it is a request, and it appears Zim agreed with the request and in fact stopped following.

 

[londonfog]

~shifts in chair~
...she got any of that money left??
cn

not much but she does have a nice new cell phone...Remember to get her to all her court appearances...Think about those cheeks ( inside and out )

 

[londonfog]

Actually, the call was not placed to 911, it was placed to the non-emergency number of SPD. Even if the non-emergency dispatcher did have the authority to order Zim to not engage in lawful behavior, read the actual words, "we don't need you to do that"; that is not an order, it is a request, and it appears Zim agreed with the request and in fact stopped following.

have you listened to the 911 tapes with Zimm and the dispatcher..had he stopped following he would have been back at his truck.. His interview and the 911 tapes don't match..you also have other evidence that draws pause to his story. Zim is in trouble..Sorry your molesting murdering hero is going down..well I'm not really sorry.

 

[NoDrama]

if 911 has no authority why call ????

Wait, Wait, Wait! You think the purpose of 911 dispatchers is so the public can solicit advice and instructions from them?

London? The purpose of 911 is so that they can dispatch fire/police/ambulance to your location and give the actual people with authority some information so that they can make it to your home in time to do some good or prevent something bad from happening. 911 operators are not there to tell you how to run your life, sorry you had to learn it the hard way in front of all your peers.

 

[londonfog]

Wait, Wait, Wait! You think the purpose of 911 dispatchers is so the public can solicit advice and instructions from them?

who the fuck said that ????? Wow you really are stupid at times. I asked a question meaning...If you feel that 911 has NO AUTHORITY as you say ( can provide quote if needed)..then why call??? you call because you want them to send help or sometimes you might need them to tell you how to do CPR until help arrive. They have AUTHORITY to do that...My question to you was simple if 911 has NO AUTHORITY as you said before...why should anyone call ?????

 

[ginwilly]

the 911 dispatch argument is a distraction

do you have to do what they tell you to do?no. are you legally obligated to follow their advice? no
They have less authority over us than our teachers did. Most 911 dispatchers are friends of the mayors wife, cops girlfriends or somebody who really really wanted to be a cop but didn't meet requirements (like Zimmerman).

This doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was complete nutjob idiot though, it's just using the dispatcher argument is clouding the facts.

 

[londonfog]

the 911 dispatch argument is a distraction

do you have to do what they tell you to do?no. are you legally obligated to follow their advice? no
They have less authority over us than our teachers did. Most 911 dispatchers are friends of the mayors wife, cops girlfriends or somebody who really really wanted to be a cop but didn't meet requirements (like Zimmerman).

This doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was complete nutjob idiot though, it's just using the dispatcher argument is clouding the facts.

I use the argument to show that he could have took the ADVICE of the dispatcher, but he did not he chose to continue to follow the "assholes who always get away".

 

[ginwilly]

which proves what a dumbass he was, but if you were watching a rape and called 911 they would most likely tell you not to get involved. Most operators think the average caller is a mouth breather. People here call 911 when McDonalds is out of chicken mcnuggets so they may be right.

I'm not defending this dipshit in anyway, with his track record he most likely was even recognized as that nutbag who always calls. It just really clouds the argument.

 

[BigLittlejohn]

LOL Why don't you just ask every lawyer in the nation, every one of them is going to tell you that you are wrong.

Do you know what the word "or" means? Perhaps not, so let me copy and paste the dictionary reference to the word "OR" for you
Do you suppose that it might be an alternative to YOUR supposed understanding of the law? Maybe?
Have a nice day.

Sigh:

Here is the entire section of the law at disupute here. I will type slowly in the hopes that maybe you will slow down, read it and then retract your complete misunderstanding of the law:

The section is entitled "Use of Force by an Aggressor": (Note that the previous sections describe the use of Deadly Force)

"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.


My understanding of the word "or" is not remotely at question here, and frankly, when you are going to try and take the approach of patronizing people, you should ensure that you are correct, otherwise you just look foolish to people who read and write English, both legal English and standard English.

You will note that a person who "provokes violence against oneself" (this means starts a fight or confrontation or is the aggressor in a conflict or confrontation) is not permitted to use deadly force unless the provisions of (a) or (b) apply.

So to recap, you can use deadly force as an aggressor if you believe your life is in danger and you have exhausted all reasonable means to escape that danger (subsection 2a); or
an aggressor attempts in good faith to escape and is pursued and the confrontation is re-initiated.

Please note, the words I asked you to explain that you apparently attempted to tapdance around like Gregory Hines by making this about the word or came from subsection 2(a) which is above. In both 2(a) and 2(b), there is a statutory duty for an aggressor to retreat before the use of deadly force.

I would invite you to have a nice day, but I tend to avoid fake platitudes when people attempt to be rude while being flat out wrong at the same time.

 

[Dr Kynes]

LOL

Translation: " I can't back up my statement so I will instead just deflect by making up even more outrageous and unfounded lies."

actual words: "im not gonna dig throiugh 5000 posts to find the ones where you make crazy statements about how zimmerwiener was justified. it's not worth my time."

Actual translation:"im not gonna dig throiugh 5000 posts to find the ones where you make crazy statements about how zimmerwiener was justified. it's not worth my time."

clear and concise statements do not require translation.

on this subject i initially felt as you obviously do, that a black perp got blasted in a righteous shoot, and the press is just trying to crucify the guy who was defending himself. this same sad scenario has been played out many times from bernie goetz to the amadou diallo shooting.

the evidence has convinced me that this is not the case. unlike amadou diallo, the shootee was not acting in a manner that a reasonable person might find threatening, he was walking home from a shop. unlike diallo, martin did not match the description of an armed serial rapist, and unlike diallo, martin was not killed by cops doing their duty, but by a lone wackjob with dreams of being the Caped Crusader.

the distinctions between zimmerman and goetz are even more striking. goetz did not seek out his attackers, goad them into attacking, or follow his attackers against the advice of the police dispatcher. goetz was attacked by armed thugs, zimmerman followed, and pursued martin, then followed him some more. he even admits his actions. then in a shocking twist that NOBODY could predict, martin turns on his innocent harmless armed pursuer, and violently FORCES poor zimmerman to shoot him under threat of death!

/sarcasm |begin comic sans
i can only imagine the terror zimmerman felt when he, an armed individual was charged by the ruthless and viscous unarmed assailant in an (almost) unprovoked attack triggered by what one can only assume to be a combination of negro rage syndrome, and reefer madness. it's surprising he only shot once, usually in their drug fueled frenzy "cocaine negroes" and reefer addicts require numerous shots in volley fire to bring them down before they rape a few dozen white women. decades of southern law enforcement studies have proven this to be the case. research conducted from the 1820's through the 1960's bears this out. usually lynching is the only weapon that effectively weakens a reefer negro to a point where he can be subdued.
/sarcasm |end comic sans

in the end zimmerman has proved to be an unstable dimwitted jackass who dreamed of being a hero. he should have been locked up for a psych evaluation long before he shot martin.

 

[desert dude]

Sigh:

Here is the entire section of the law at disupute here. I will type slowly in the hopes that maybe you will slow down, read it and then retract your complete misunderstanding of the law:

The section is entitled "Use of Force by an Aggressor": (Note that the previous sections describe the use of Deadly Force)

"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.


My understanding of the word "or" is not remotely at question here, and frankly, when you are going to try and take the approach of patronizing people, you should ensure that you are correct, otherwise you just look foolish to people who read and write English, both legal English and standard English.

You will note that a person who "provokes violence against oneself" (this means starts a fight or confrontation or is the aggressor in a conflict or confrontation) is not permitted to use deadly force unless the provisions of (a) or (b) apply.

So to recap, you can use deadly force as an aggressor if you believe your life is in danger and you have exhausted all reasonable means to escape that danger (subsection 2a); or
an aggressor attempts in good faith to escape and is pursued and the confrontation is re-initiated.

Please note, the words I asked you to explain that you apparently attempted to tapdance around like Gregory Hines by making this about the word or came from subsection 2(a) which is above. In both 2(a) and 2(b), there is a statutory duty for an aggressor to retreat before the use of deadly force.

I would invite you to have a nice day, but I tend to avoid fake platitudes when people attempt to be rude while being flat out wrong at the same time.

Yep, I agree. I don't see how exception (b) would be applied because exception (a) fits the circumstances best.

1. What evidence is there that Zimmerman started the fight? Every action he took before the fight started was lawful. If Zim did not start the fight then SYG applies more broadly.
2. If you conclude he started the fight (following, etc), then how could he escape while prone and having his head bashed against the sidewalk? If he cannot escape, then by definition he has exhausted every reasonable means of escape.
3. Did he reasonably fear GBH/death? An assailant pounding my head into the sidewalk would cause me to fear GBH/death; I think I am a reasonable man. Maybe you are willing to allow somebody to pound your head into a sidewalk until they are satisfied with the damage, but I doubt many people would be so accommodating to such an assault.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yep, I agree. I don't see how exception (b) would be applied because exception (a) fits the circumstances best.

1. What evidence is there that Zimmerman started the fight? Every action he took before the fight started was lawful. If Zim did not start the fight then SYG applies more broadly.
2. If you conclude he started the fight (following, etc), then how could he escape while prone and having his head bashed against the sidewalk? If he cannot escape, then by definition he has exhausted every reasonable means of escape.
3. Did he reasonably fear GBH/death? An assailant pounding my head into the sidewalk would cause me to fear GBH/death; I think I am a reasonable man. Maybe you are willing to allow somebody to pound your head into a sidewalk until they are satisfied with the damage, but I doubt many people would be so accommodating to such an assault.

1: Z-man would not have been in the position to get his ass beat if he wasnt following a dude who was NOT up to shenanigans in the first place
2: in florida following somebody who is going about their own business IS stalking, and its a felony if the target is under 16
3: following somebody is always an aggressive act. if i followed you around you would be extremely nervous i assure you, bu thats mainly just because in the dark i look like a man-raper. goddamned fucking genetics.
4: if you deliberately (and creepily) follow somebody and they turn on you this is not an unexpected response.
5: Zimmerdink's injuries are minor. i've had worse from an evening of rough consensual sex play with a certain rather attractive cougar (the lady kind, not the big cat kind)
6: zimmerwiener was packing heat, and this breeds the kind of confidence in morons like himself that causes the complete lack of fear for one's safety until the moron in question finally realizes that his fast draw is not that fast.
7: idiots often display their gun before attempting to draw it. this is a signal to the observer that "shit just got real" and its time to throw down or run away. i still have a toy gun i took off a jackass who displayed his "piece" in a bar brawl in salinas. dumbasses often think that guns make them invulnerable, or in some cases they believe (erroneously) that they are in possession of the last gun ever made. dumbasses are gonna dumbass.

 

[desert dude]

1: Z-man would not have been in the position to get his ass beat if he wasnt following a dude who was NOT up to shenanigans in the first place
2: in florida following somebody who is going about their own business IS stalking, and its a felony if the target is under 16
3: following somebody is always an aggressive act. if i followed you around you would be extremely nervous i assure you, bu thats mainly just because in the dark i look like a man-raper. goddamned fucking genetics.
4: if you deliberately (and creepily) follow somebody and they turn on you this is not an unexpected response.
5: Zimmerdink's injuries are minor. i've had worse from an evening of rough consensual sex play with a certain rather attractive cougar (the lady kind, not the big cat kind)
6: zimmerwiener was packing heat, and this breeds the kind of confidence in morons like himself that causes the complete lack of fear for one's safety until the moron in question finally realizes that his fast draw is not that fast.
7: idiots often display their gun before attempting to draw it. this is a signal to the observer that "shit just got real" and its time to throw down or run away. i still have a toy gun i took off a jackass who displayed his "piece" in a bar brawl in salinas. dumbasses often think that guns make them invulnerable, or in some cases they believe (erroneously) that they are in possession of the last gun ever made. dumbasses are gonna dumbass.

1. Completely lawful, so what? Zimmerman's actions were reasonable given the history of burglaries in the neighborhood.
2. Zimmerman is not charged with stalking. So what?
3. Weak point, but it holds some water. Of course, the "always" part is not correct. What makes you think your are the only "victim of genetics" !
4. Again, weak point, but it holds some water.
5. Disagree on this one. Personally, my head and concrete are not meant to collide. If you are content to let somebody try to crack your noodle, that's on you. Your experience with cougars is amusing though, so I will give you that.
6. Zimmerman was legally carrying. The rest is pure speculation on your part and not supported by any actual evidence.
7. Again, pure speculation on your part and contradicted by one eye witness.

The absolute most you have accomplished with your list is to make a very weak case that "Zim started it". As I said earlier, if the jury is convinced that Zim started the fight by following Martin, then they must judge whether it fits exception (a). To me, this incident fits exception (a).

 

[Dr Kynes]

1. Completely lawful, so what? Zimmerman's actions were reasonable given the history of burglaries in the neighborhood.
2. Zimmerman is not charged with stalking. So what?
3. Weak point, but it holds some water. Of course, the "always" part is not correct. What makes you think your are the only "victim of genetics" !
4. Again, weak point, but it holds some water.
5. Disagree on this one. Personally, my head and concrete are not meant to collide. If you are content to let somebody try to crack your noodle, that's on you. Your experience with cougars is amusing though, so I will give you that.
6. Zimmerman was legally carrying. The rest is pure speculation on your part and not supported by any actual evidence.
7. Again, pure speculation on your part and contradicted by one eye witness.

The absolute most you have accomplished with your list is to make a very weak case that "Zim started it". As I said earlier, if the jury is convinced that Zim started the fight by following Martin, then they must judge whether it fits exception (a). To me, this incident fits exception (a).

Z-man's own statements to the police dispatch, and to the cops and to the press do not paint him as an innocent victim, they portray him to be a deranged wackado who, if he lived in my neighborhood would have been shot dead by a fusillade of bullets from every window and breezeway. we got a pattern of robberies and burglaries in my town too, and most of the suspects are black as well. this does not give me the right to creep around the liquor store and follow every black guy i dont recognize with a pistol in my belt. zimmerman was dancing on the edge of felonious stalking, he was pursuing a guy who had every reason to be scared shitless of a dude lurking behind him in a dark alley, and every reason to worry about the possibility of being assaulted, shot lynched or tied to the hitch ball of a truck for some impromptu track and field exercise on the local highway.