Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

The photo is likely real, although it bears emphasizing that, as far as scalp wounds go, that one seems really minor. I've seen way, way more blood than that pour out of scalp wounds that barely warranted a Band-Aid - a serious one (requiring stitches, say) would have produced enough blood to soak the dude's jacket. What we seem to be looking at here is a small nick. Which doesn't seem consistent with the whole "having his head repeatedly, violently slammed against concrete" story - that would likely have produced copious quantities of blood.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've bled about that much from a three-stitch wound.

If true, the photo would support at least the allegation of a mutual altercation, although not necessarily the necessity for a firearm defense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To your scalp?

I've myself had wounds that required multiple stitches that didn't bleed so much, but they weren't on my scalp. I've also gotten small scrapes on my scalp that required nothing more than a small Band-Aid, but resulted in enough bleeding that I had to throw away all of the clothes I was wearing, take a hose to the bike I was riding, etc.

Probably there's enough credible witness testimony to support the idea that some kind of mutual struggle occurred.

But one scenario that a gun enthusiast suggested is that Zimmerman could have inflicted the injuries on himself accidentally, due to the recoil from firing the gun (i.e., gun recoils and smacks him in the nose, this causes him to fall down and hit his head). Not sure how realistic that is, but it's an interesting thought...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whoa.

Well, I haven't had any on the scalp, but I got a golf club a la tete. I figure about two 'hands' worth, but up near the eye. I think there's a lot less bleeding from scalp hits, depending, but I could be mistaken. My second kid got one and it didn't bleed that badly. The volume of blood there would be on the lower end of the scale for a wound like that... but that's also based on the roughest of guesses from that photo. I mean, I think I can see how bad it is, but the flash obscures most of it. If he was lying on his back maybe more blood would have run into the grass or on the ground; no word about that of course. Probably wouldn't be until the trial, if anyone bothered to look.

Bet we don't hear about it until the trial. They'll have slapped that down but hard to preserve some shot at juror integrity.

Possible. (I presume you've seen the chick-fires-gun videos on youtube.) I think it would be a bigger calibre to achieve that kind of self-critical hit (like .357, .40) but it's possible. Fights are confused things, so it could have been done then. Or he could have held it stupidly and hammered his own head.

Of course we're just speculating now. Who the hell knows? There have been a few eyewitnesses, but this one kid says it was too dark to see...so how dark was it? Is this possible? Madness. My call at this point: the defense just masks the case in enough smoke, and reasonable doubt takes the case out.

 

"Stalking" is a loaded term. Zimmerman followed Martin. Merely following someone doesn't give the person who you are following justification to attack you. If Zimmerman attacked Martin before Martin did anything violent or threatening, then Zimmerman would be guilty. If Martin got angry that Zimmerman was following him and attacked Zimmerman even though Zimmerman hadn't done anything threatening (and again, simply following someone in public doesn't count), then it was self defense.

 

Stalking is not a loaded term. In fact it's a legal term. There is sufficient evidence in this situation to prove Zimmerman was in fact stalking Trayvon.

An innocent person stalked will see stalking as completely irrational and a danger to themselves. In Trayvon, it eventually invoked the flight in the flight or fight psychological and emotional response. When Trayvon ran, this proves Zimmerman's aggression increased by chasing him. This then reasonably elevated the sense of danger to Trayvon. It should be easy to see that a reasonable person would feel at this point they were in danger of bodily injury or death. You have no idea what irrational step the stalker will take next. They've went from stalking on the street to aggressively stalking by chasing. The logical conclusion is that things are escalating irrationally. Especially when the have a deadly weapon in the circumstance.

It does not matter whether Trayvon knew he had a weapon (I believe he did). The death threat existed regardless, which makes the type of stalking which is guaranteed threat to another life because fight or flight is a natural result of such stalking behaviour. The gun would need to be pulled if the tables turned against the stalker by forcing a person into a fight response. Zimmerman drew first blood. He started this whole mess. He needs to be responsible for what he created.

Trayvon clearly had the right to Stand His Own Ground and beat this man senseless for putting him in this psychologically natural state of flight or fight. When was the last time you were stalked? Do you even know what that feels like?

Zimmerman may have thought the only alternative to protect himself was to use a gun, but he is the one who created that situation, not Trayvon. Trayvon acted rationally against a freak who stalked him, while carrying a deadly weapon.

 

I love how you point out that it's a legal term with a definition, and then even post the definition, and STILL you get the definition wrong. I guess you missed the "repeatedly" part?

 

The principle of stalking is not based upon a clock, it based on the nature of the act itself. It doesn't need to occur twice to say it exists once.

 

"Merely following" someone could itself be a threatening act, depending on the circumstances and behavior. We are talking about an armed stranger following a teenager by car, at night, here.

Consider how it would be perceived if Zimmerman had been following a female around at night, with a loaded gun and in a car. Would anyone insist that she'd have been unreasonable to feel threatened by such behavior?

Again, I don't see where there's any bright line between "simply following someone in public" and "threatening." Could you cite the jurisprudence that establishes this clear difference, and show how it applies unequivocably to everything that we know Zimmerman to have done that night?

 

For god's sake, read the text that YOU posted:

Why don't you go away for a while to work on your reading comprehension?

 

If you think that you would be justified to preemptively attack someone just because they are following you around a neighborhood in a car, you're insane. Some further indication of a threat would be needed. And I certainly don't see how you could claim self defense if you approached and attacked the person you were afraid of as they were walking away from you, which is what Zimmerman claimed happened. I don't know if Zimmerman's claims are true, but if they are, I fail to see how anyone could claim that Martin attacked him in self defense.

She might "feel threatened," but she would not be legally justified to attack the person for no other reason.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to respond to this part:

Since I believe "reasonableness" is a finding of fact, rather than a legal conclusion, I don't think you're going to find useful guidance from precedent. As for there not being a "bright line," although the line might not be bright, I'm still pretty sure that it's WAY the hell away from "he was following me around in a public place, so I had to approach and attack him," absent any other threatening indicators.

 

It's quoted. Hmmm. I guess I'm wrong. Psyche. Do you see that ever so important word 'or'?

Maybe you should go away and come back with a response after taking a logic 101 course. Anyway, I find my first response has trumped even that imperfectly written code. Repediately should only mean your doing it more than once. Each act should be a count.

In Trayvons case, Zimmerman won't be able to do it repeatedly. You can't stalk a dead body.

 

Either way, he repeadedly stalked and repeatedly harrassed. On the first occasion, he tracked him on the street and on the second occasion, he chased him.

Do you suppose this was only one occasion and should not be treated as repeatedly? With this abject reasoning, which your argument seems to imply, you may strike a person one day, it's okay, but if you strike them on the same day then we can say you are finally assaulting a person. Is this how you interpret such code? We see your intent clearly. It is not clever.

 

Christ, how old are you? You have the reading comprehension of a 10-year-old. Since you're apparently unable to grasp the definition of stalking that you posted, I'll break it down for you slowly: it says that to stalk someone, you must follows or harasses them, and that following or harassment must be done willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly. A single instance of harassment or following can't be stalking, because it's not repeated.

The statute dealing with assault probably don't say it must be a repeated act, dumbass.

 

Did Zimmerman Defense Deceive Court at Bond Hearing?

Did Zimmerman Defense Deceive Court at Bond Hearing?

One wonders just who is calling what shots in George Zimmerman's defense. The infamous "SYG" shooter from Sanford, Florida, is free on bond, but Judge Kenneth Lester now wants some answers about why the court was not told about available funds during the bond hearing:

Mark O'Mara, the attorney representing George Zimmerman, told the judge in the Trayvon Martin shooting case Friday that his client had much more money on hand than he had revealed to the court at his bond hearing on April 20 ....

.... At the bond hearing, Zimmerman's parents said they had few means to raise the $15,000 necessary to pay a bail bondsman to post a bond to free Zimmerman, who left prison on April 22 with a GPS anklet. But at the time, Zimmerman had at least $150,000 that he had gleaned from a website called The RealGeorgeZimmerman.com.

Given that revelation, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked US District Judge Kenneth Lester to reexamine the bond arrangement. Judge Lester asked Mr. O'Mara to compile a list of donors and when they made their payments.

"I may have authority or I may not," Lester said. Lester could potentially adjust the bond or revoke it altogether, meaning Zimmerman would have to go back to jail to await trial.

(Jonsson)​

Martin family attorney Ben Crump said, simply, "The lying has begun." Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara says he is now in charge of his client's defense fund, and asserted that the accused murderer "has no more internet presence".

Technical questions remain. What are the implications for George Zimmerman's pretrial freedom? Should a list of Zimmerman's donors be made public, or is this case too fraught with peril?

But looking forward to the trial itself, one wonders what impact the event will have on Zimmerman's credibility. With much public attention having considered conflicting stories—Zimmerman was jumped when he got out of his truck to look at a street sign because he did not know which of the three streets in his own community he was on; Zimmerman was jumped when he was walking back to his truck after pursuing Trayvon Martin; &c.—it does not seem to do the defendant credit to have already earned the appearance of attempting to deceive the court.
____________________

Notes:

Jonsson, Patrik. "Judge wants answers about $200,000 'Real George Zimmerman' defense fund". The Christian Science Monitor. April 27, 2012. CSMonitor.com. April 29, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ut-200-000-Real-George-Zimmerman-defense-fund

 

Obiviously, he willfully did it, no one was was holding his hand.

If you don't call Zimmermans's kind of following and chasing of an innocent human being which results in murder, malicious, you are clueless of the meaning malicious.

And, when you don't stop stalking, until you kill someone, that obviously can be construed as repeadetly. If it wasn't repeatedly, then he would have stopped and Trayvon would be alive. But, he didn't stop untill Trayvon was murdered. Gavel slams.

You are trying to twist the defintions by desperate grabs with the most inductively weak semantics, which shows your attempt is to protect the criminal act of killing an innocent person. It's obvious you are intent on protecting an idiot who began this psychotic chasing of an innocent man and murdered him. This idiot already admitted he made mistakes. Zimmerman has incriminated himself several times through candorous statements. He did this on the 911 calls and in public several times. He now is trying to bullshit his way out by saying he shot him in self-defense, when he is the psychopathic suspcious one who put Trayvon the innocent in the fight or flight mode. Why would you want to even argue on the side of such a piece of shit? You have no idea how terrible you look siding with such an idiot. Perhaps you are on Trayvon's side and you'd like to test the retard argument with me? Fine. I could only hope you have an ulterior motive to help Trayvon.

Zimmerman stalked and murdered Trayvon. The physcial evidence proves it. You are trying to use a spin on meaning as a supporting argument. I've already debunked your bullshit. That spin doesn't work with me. Prove how I'm wrong by providing an argument that does so vs just negating in a not-so-clever way.

 

This obviously shows he will hide things from the court which are relevant to the case.

His credibility took the first hit when he suspiciously stalked an innocent person.

On the 911 call he says something to effect, 'these guys always get away'. Get away with what? Imaginary crimes?

 

It's hilarious that you say this:

And then this:

It's painfully obvious that you were too stupid to actually read and understand the definition of "stalking" that you yourself posted, and now you're trying to weasel out of it by twisting the definition of "repeatedly" to mean "a single continuous act."

No, I'm just pointing out that you were wrong when you said he was guilty of stalking. Whether or not he was stalking Martin has nothing to do with whether or not he murdered Martin. But given the astounding lack of reading comprehension you've displayed so far, I'm not at all surprised you've confused "Zimmerman wasn't stalking" with "Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong."

No, what's obvious is that you're trying to distract people from your idiocy with the definition of "stalking" by accusing me of supporting Zimmerman, even though I haven't said anything like that. I simply pointed out that you were full of shit when you said Zimmerman was guilty of stalking.

All of which has nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman wasn't stalking, but nice try attempting to redirect the argument.

See above. The fact that you didn't know the definition of stalking and me calling you on it doesn't mean I support Zimmerman, it just means that I called you out on being a dumbass. Zimmerman being guilty of murder and you being a total dumbass who can't admit that you made a stupid mistake by not reading the definition that YOU posted aren't at all mutually exclusive.

 

But then that's not what I said, now is it?

Pro-tip: if you're starting a sentence with "If you think," following that with a self-serving rephrasing, and then concluding with an ad-hom, you're constructing a straw man argument (and trolling, to boot).

Like, say, if the pursuer were to get out of his car and follow you on foot, and then demand that you justify your presence there? Or are you running some stilted line of granting everything Zimmerman says at face value, and then asserting that such is an airtight case? If so, why - what is the relevance of that line of thought?

But, in the first place: says who? I still don't see where it's been established that pursuing someone can't itself rise to the level of "reasonably threatening," in the right circumstances, and I don't see where you provided anything more than sneering dismissal in the way of argumentation for that point (despite being asked for such support in a clear, respectful manner).

There's clear evidence that contradicts that version of events. So why do we care what he claims about it - other than to note that it's an obvious lie that calls the larger veracity of his self-serving account into question. I mean, the whole narrative is just preposterous - this crazed, dangerous youth just decides to jump the dude randomly, for no reason, and try to beat him to death? What's the relevance of asserting that this obviously false account would, if it were actually all true, amount to a good legal defense?

Again, what is the relevance of such a hypothetical, and why are you clinging to it so vehemently?

What I asked you is whether she'd be reasonable to feel threatened.

Because, if so, the whole SYG law actually does legally justify using physical force - up to and including lethal force if warranted - to deal with said threat.

And why, exactly, are you so determined to avoid answering that (vanilla, straightforward) question as posed, or dealing with the actual laws in question?

So you agree that such an issue comes down to nothing more than how a jury evaluates the totality of the circumstances involved, as presented by the lawyers, yes?

And you have - still - offered absolutely nothing in the way of support for your surety beyond your own personal speculations, which you offer up without any supporting reasoning or analysis or precedents.

 

Okay, let's review. In post #325 I said:

.
You responded with:

Now you want to accuse me of mischaracterizing your argument when I say:

?

If someone follows you for a while in a car, then gets out and asks something like "Hey, what are you doing here?" I wouldn't consider that justification to preemptively attack that person.

It's confusing to me that you would ask this, since in the post to which I responded I said "I don't know if Zimmerman's claims are true."

Since "reasonableness" entirely depends on what the jury thinks is reasonable, it's impossible to "prove" whether or not hypothetical actions are reasonable. In theory, a jury might decide that ANY set of circumstances was reasonable self defense. So I'll grant you that I was probably stating things too strongly when I presented it as a fact that simply following someone couldn't constitute justification for attacking in self defense. I can't prove that some jury somewhere wouldn't be convinced that it was self defense to attack someone because they were following you, in some possible set of circumstances, so I apologize for over-stating the certainty of my position.

What evidence is that? I haven't been religiously following the case, so I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be damning details against Zimmerman that I'm not aware of.

I think Zimmerman's version of events is going to be that Martin attacked him because he was angry about being followed, not "randomly, for no reason."

Yes.