Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by spidey07

Broken nose is considered "great bodily harm" according to the law. It is harm that offers the possibility of permanent disfigurement.

Spidey's never heard of rhinoplasty...

[airdata]

Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo
What about all the heads that will explode should spidey's posts be proven true which is very much a possibility.

And until such a time, it's all speculation & bullshit.

I'm glad you agree.

[randomrogue]

Originally Posted by spidey07

Broken nose is considered "great bodily harm" according to the law. It is harm that offers the possibility of permanent disfigurement.

I've broken someone's nose. It took almost nothing to do so. I find it amazing that it can be classified as a GBI. Sometimes it is though. Keep in mind though that a jury can judge the injuries on a case by case basis. They're not forced to accept a broken nose as GBH.

If the lawyers can prove that it was Zimmerman who started the fight, and provoked the use of violence, then the great bodily harm defense is not valid as I understand it.

So wait for the damn trial.

[spidey07]

Originally Posted by randomrogue

I've broken someone's nose. It took almost nothing to do so. I find it amazing that it can be classified as a GBI. Sometimes it is though. Keep in mind though that a jury can judge the injuries on a case by case basis. They're not forced to accept a broken nose as GBH.

If the lawyers can prove that it was Zimmerman who started the fight, and provoked the use of violence, then the great bodily harm defense is not valid as I understand it.

So wait for the damn trial.

Even IF zimmerman was initial aggressor he could still lawfully shoot in self defense because of the following known FACTS. These FACTs are key in showing how all evidence actually PROVES self defense rather than refute it. There is zero evidence this wasn't self defense. None.

1) On back, after being brutally beaten by martin repeatedly about the head - that means martin was an imminent threat to zimmeran's life and capable of inflicting great bodily harm (he had already done so)
2) Martin on top of zimmerman, proven by ballistics and eye witnesses
3) Zimmerman unable to retreat as he was mounted by martin

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.

[randomrogue]

Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.

[soundforbjt]

My friend's five year old daughter broke his nose while she straddled him. Ok to shoot spidey?

[They Live]

Originally Posted by randomrogue

Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.

Yep, and Spidey knows this.

I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, or brandished his weapon at Trayvon, he would have been charged. The reason why he was never charged is because they had no proof that he assaulted Trayvon in any way shape or form, or flashed his gun, or threatened Martin with his gun.

Also, "aggressor" could be considered many things, and so can "
provoke". I can walk up to someone and blatantly insult them and their family, and I would be considered the aggressor in that scenario, though if he did attack me, I could shoot.

Someone like Spidey could pull a Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and go to Harlem with a "I hate ******s" sign strapped to his back, which would be considered provoking people, however if he was attacked, he could shoot.

However, someone brandishing a weapon or assaulting someone then shooting when they are starting to get beat up? Haven't found once case that matches those scenarios yet. Perhaps cases like that do exist, I've just haven't found one yet.

[TerryMathews]

Originally Posted by randomrogue

Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.

Yes, and it may have been exploited in this case however that doesn't invalidate it.

There is no equivalent of jury nullification for conviction. They cannot return a verdict not founded in the law, and if they do the judge is duty bound to set it aside.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgm...anding_verdict

[They Live]

Using Spidey's logic, the black guy in this video could have legally shot the old white man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA-BRHjsnCc

While the black guy was clearly the aggressor, the old white guy started to brutally beat the black guy down to the ground. Using Spidey's logic, he could have shot and killed the old white guy, and would have never been charged.

However, chances are if he did have a gun and did shoot the old man after the beat down, he would have been charged with a crime.

[SpatiallyAware]

Originally Posted by randomrogue

Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.

Welcome to our justice system.

It is understandably designed in a way where one is innocent until proven guilty.

Many in here would prefer that we decide guilt based on gut feelings.

[spidey07]

Originally Posted by They Live

Using Spidey's logic, the black guy in this video could have legally shot the old white man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA-BRHjsnCc

While the black guy was clearly the aggressor, the old white guy started to brutally beat the black guy down to the ground. Using Spidey's logic, he could have shot and killed the old white guy, and would have never been charged.

However, chances are if he did have a gun and did shoot the old man after the beat down, he would have been charged with a crime.

Black guy committed forcible felony, so of course he would be charged.

I've explained this dozens of times to you, stop making shit up.

Any evidence zimmerman committed a forcible felony? Any evidence at all that this wasn't self defense?

Anything? One piece? One shred of evidence?

No, you have nothing and neither does the prosecution.

Also, the initial aggressor had avenues of retreat. One more time for you so you can read...

(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.

[Londo_Jowo]

Originally Posted by airdata

And until such a time, it's all speculation & bullshit.

I'm glad you agree.

The same can be said about your fairy tale theories as well.

[They Live]

Originally Posted by spidey07

Black guy committed forcible felony, so of course he would be charged.

I've explained this dozens of times to you, stop making shit up.

So you admit that it does matter how it started between Zimmerman and Martin.

Not having evidence that Zimmerman is the aggressor is one thing, but repeating over and over again that "being brutally beat down = okay to shoot, no matter who started the fight" is in fact a lie on your part. Unless of course you agree that the black guy in that video, who was the aggressor, had a right to shoot the old white man.

Edit: And black guy had no way to retreat. Nobody was helping him, and it could be argued that few punches from a clearly strong old man could have killed him.

[spidey07]

Originally Posted by They Live

So you admit that it does matter how it started between Zimmerman and Martin.

Not having evidence that Zimmerman is the aggressor is one thing, but repeating over and over again that "being brutally beat down = okay to shoot, no matter who started the fight" is in fact a lie on your part. Unless of course you agree that the black guy in that video, who was the aggressor, had a right to shoot the old white man.

Edit: And black guy had no way to retreat. Nobody was helping him as it was, and it could be argued that few punches from a clearly strong old man could have killed him.

No, it doesn't matter how or who "started it". Unless there is some forcible felony involved. I've explained this to you dozens of times. The key to this case is martin over zimmerman, mounting him, after brutally beating him repeatedly about the head while zimmerman screamed for his life. Those are known facts that make it self defense.

The black guy would be able to shoot if white guy mounted him, with black guy on his back, preventing retreat and then continued the beating.

Read more, since it is obviously not sinking in yet...

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.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

My friend's five year old daughter broke his nose while she straddled him. Ok to shoot spidey?

Was he being beaten?
Was blood pooling so he felt he was choking?
Was she unwilling to let him up?
Was he unable to get up because she was straddling him?
Was she trying to harm?



See how ridiculous you seem?

the more the TM crowd reaches out to belittle the evidence the more foolish they seem.

And where is this thoughtful scenario/theory, supported by the evidence,that you indicated you would be able to provide.

You have typed enough in this thread since stating that you had one.

[They Live]

I'll let you get the last word in Spidey, even though you are wrong. This is my last post on this particular subject (the subject of the aggressor, not the Zimmerman case itself).

[soundforbjt]

(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.

Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by They Live

Yep, and Spidey knows this.

I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, or brandished his weapon at Trayvon, he would have been charged. The reason why he was never charged is because they had no proof that he assaulted Trayvon in any way shape or form, or flashed his gun, or threatened Martin with his gun.

Also, "aggressor" could be considered many things, and so can "
provoke". I can walk up to someone and blatantly insult them and their family, and I would be considered the aggressor in that scenario, though if he did attack me, I could shoot.

Someone like Spidey could pull a Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and go to Harlem with a "I hate ******s" sign strapped to his back, which would be considered provoking people, however if he was attacked, he could shoot.

However, someone brandishing a weapon or assaulting someone then shooting when they are starting to get beat up? Haven't found once case that matches those scenarios yet. Perhaps cases like that do exist, I've just haven't found one yet.

Seems as if you and others seem to fail to realize that it is not who does the provocation that matters.

It is who is in danger and feels that they have no other recourse.

Spitting on each other does not cut it; nor throwing out silly insults.

As much as others want to close the trial as a provocation; it is the last 2-3 minutes that determine the legal outcome.

Everything else is frosting on the cake as to explain how the situation developed and to try to explain actions as a distraction.

[spidey07]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).

He wasn't the initial aggressor, he didn't need to retreat or attempt to.

Even IF zimmerman was the initial aggressor he could shoot in self defense when martin was mounting him on his back after martin brutally and viciously beat zimmerman about the head many times.

That's what makes this such a rock solid case of self defense. There are witnesses, ballistics and all the other evidence that actually PROVE self defense.

Anybody have one shred of evidence this wasn't self defense? Anything? One piece?

[They Live]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

Seems as if you and others seem to fail to realize that it is not who does the provocation that matters.

It is who is in danger and feels that they have no other recourse.

Spitting on each other does not cut it; nor throwing out silly insults.

As much as others want to close the trial as a provocation; it is the last 2-3 minutes that determine the legal outcome.

Everything else is frosting on the cake as to explain how the situation developed and to try to explain actions as a distraction.

Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).

Was he able to fight back with Martin mounting him?

From what the witness indicated he saw, NO.
Had he tried to escape - who knows; can the prosecution prove that he did not try and had the ability to do so?

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by They Live

Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.

So in that case; why is the TM crowd trying to come up with what if theories as to what happened;

There is no proof/evidence that Martin felt threatens by a weapon.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

Was he able to fight back with Martin mounting him?

From what the witness indicated he saw, NO.
Had he tried to escape - who knows; can the prosecution prove that he did not try and had the ability to do so?

Who knows, there's been no trial and the prosecution hasn't presented their case, It's who's interpetation and who's story the facts tell best that determine the outcome in these cases.

[SpatiallyAware]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

So in that case; why is the TM crowd trying to come up with what if theories as to what happened;

There is no proof/evidence that Martin felt threatens by a weapon.

Because they came to the conclusion that zimmerman was guilty based off of the pictures released the week this all came out.


They have then spent months doing everything possible to justify their predetermined conclusion.

[momeNt]

Originally Posted by They Live

Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.

The best evidence that he assaulted martin is the fact he even was able to get his weapon out from behind himself while being pummeled on his back. It stands to reason that the gun was out when the confrontation started.

Can't really convict on that because there is no witness or actual evidence to that point, and a re-enactment showing how its basically impossible to do this still isn't enough to prove he assaulted Martin by drawing his weapon before Martin ever struck him.