Trayvon Martin - black kid armed with skittles killed in "self-defense"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Where's the kid's blood then? I never been in a situation of seeing someone shot (thank God) but wouldn't blood be spewed on you when you shoot a guy at such close proximity?

---

That would be for an expert to determine. From your statement, you do not know and are speculating, which would be inadmissible.

Why does ABC need to speculate like you do? It's not like they blurred it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

I'm sure you're not interested in the fact that the video really does appear to show a gash on Zimmerman's head? Or the part where an officer checks out the back of his head for a few seconds? Why let facts get in the way of a good lynchin'?

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/up...ed-caption.jpg

I wonder why ABC didn't point either of those things out? I guess you'll just have to find another reason to hate, rather than putting down the rope for now.

---

IF that is a gash, that is enough to shoot dead a teen in a confrontation that he started?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

It's irrelevant? It's very relevant because their law states that if you feel you are on the verge of death or suffered "GREAT bodily harm" (actual text), that you can use deadly force.

Looking at that video, I just don't see that "GREAT bodily harm". Plus he didn't even need to go to the hospital.

---

Zimmerman: "I thought my life was in danger."

Now the video is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

With the shitty job they've done overall, that's how I came to that conclusion.

---

How do you know they have done a bad job?

Did you know that during investigations, police departments routinely keep the files closed to the public. Usually records are turned over at the close of an investigation.

Have you already concluded that Zimmerman should have been arrested and convicted?

If so, based on what Florida law/ evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

IF that is a gash, that is enough to shoot dead a teen in a confrontation that he started?

---

Is this a hypothetical question with the premise that Zimmerman struck the first blow? I have seen no evidence of that and I'm pretty confident you haven't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

This has got to be one of the dumbest lines of argument I have ever seen in here.

Nowhere in the statute does it say that the victim has to wait until he is seeing the white light and baby jesus holding out his hand before he can defend himself.

---

It says GREAT bodily harm. GREAT bodily harm is WAY WAY WAY more than a gash on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Is this a hypothetical question with the premise that Zimmerman struck the first blow? I have seen no evidence of that and I'm pretty confident you haven't either.

---

No, it's a fact that he started the WHOLE thing. Since the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Doesn't matter. Great bodily harm injuries lasts for days.

---

How do you know? What if most of the damage was internal? Would you be able to see it thirty minutes after the incident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

It says GREAT bodily harm. GREAT bodily harm is WAY WAY WAY more than a gash on the head.

---

Are you using your extensive street brawl knowledge to make such a claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

How do you know? What if most of the damage was internal? Would you be able to see it thirty minutes after the incident?

---

Then he would've went to the hospital. He was cleared on the spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

It says GREAT bodily harm. GREAT bodily harm is WAY WAY WAY more than a gash on the head.

---

It doesn't matter.

Just how far does the victim have to be beat, if he thinks it's going to get worse, before he takes drastic measures?

Are you saying he has to wait until St. Peter says it's OK?

Here's what the statute actually says dumbass...

Quote:

---

Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

---

It says PREVENT great bodily harm, not that he has to SUSTAIN great bodily harm.

When Martin was pounding his head on the concrete there was a clear and indisputable possibility of great bodily harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Then he would've went to the hospital. He was cleared on the spot.

---

Are you sure he was cleared? I read that he rejected further medical attention.

But to your other point. Can you tell me how Florida defines "Great Bodily Harm". You have alleged that his injuries do not meet this prerequisite for self-defense. Please support with a definition within the Florida Statutes or Florida Caselaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fpoonsie

Are you using your extensive street brawl knowledge to make such a claim?

---

I have seen way worse injuries in a street fight and a gun was neither pulled nor the guy that inflicted the damage go to jail for attempted murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

No, it's a fact that he started the WHOLE thing. Since the beginning.

---

Damn you are an idiot.

Even assuming Zimmerman verbally confronted Martin Zimmerman could have talked all the shit he wanted and it's not an assault. Zimmerman may be an asshole but if he didn't throw the first punch it's not an assault.

Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose, however WAS an assault.

Pounding Zimmermans head into the concrete was a clear threat of great bodily harm.

Zimmerman may be a total asshole but under the Florida law he seems to be well within his right to cap Martin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

I have seen way worse injuries in a street fight and a gun was neither pulled nor the guy that inflicted the damage go to jail for attempted murder.

---

So if someone is sitting on you bashing your head in the ground, you're supposed to wait until you know you're incurring life threatening damage?

And remember, at this point, Zimmerman thought Martin might use the Skittles on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You mean how unreliable it can be?

---

Can be yes. Did not mean to imply it always is.
However the show did an excellent job of showing how it more often then not is unreliable. Gave some stunning examples. In a very nice twist, the gal who put away a guy for years (and yes he is black) was just absolutely positive she had i.d.'d him correctly as her rapist. Years later forensics proved him innocent and the real perp was caught. Now black guy and she go around the country advocating against eyewitness testimony (well, advocating against it being used to lock up innocent people). The show might be watchable on CBSs archives. Im not sure about that but if you see it i predict you will really enjoy it. Very well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantthinkofanything

So if someone is sitting on you bashing your head in the ground, you're supposed to wait until you know you're incurring life threatening damage?

And remember, at this point, Zimmerman thought Martin might use the Skittles on him.

---

Martin was the one facing imminent threat when Zimmerman had a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Damn you are an idiot.

Even assuming Zimmerman verbally confronted Martin Zimmerman could have talked all the shit he wanted and it's not an assault. Zimmerman may be an asshole but if he didn't throw the first punch it's not an assault.

Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose, however WAS an assault.

Pounding Zimmermans head into the concrete was a clear threat of great bodily harm.

Zimmerman may be a total asshole but under the Florida law he seems to be well within his right to cap Martin.

---

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

let's see:
- nobody knows who threw the first punch
- nobody knows the extent of Z's injuries
- nobody knows what evidence the victim's body has to account for the incident

we know nothing. ppl arguing on either side are mainly talking shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why does ABC need to speculate like you do? It's not like they blurred it out.

---

LOL... but they did say that there were no signs of any head injury, even though that was a lie. And they did overlay their logo and other text over Zimmerman's head, right at the time that the mark was visible. (Strangely, now that they've been outed, they have removed the overlay on that part of the video.) But, hey, why let facts get in your way? You never did before.


Now jump, puppet. Think of some other excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Martin was the one facing imminent threat when Zimmerman had a gun.

---

I must really be an ignorant dumb-ass, because it seems, to me that a person who has a concealed carry permit is seldom thought of as an imminent threat. I always thought is was one who illegally carried a weapon.

How about looking up the definition of "imminent" for me. I must be too stupid to find it. Please do and quote it for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

---

None of that has anything to do with the point that you decidedly were not making earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creepn

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

---

And if Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, I'll totally agree with you. Find ANY evidence that happened. Until then, you're just making shit up to try and justify a lynch mob.