So how many injuries should one "accept" before finding another way to fight back? That is the difficult standard. How close to losing consciousness would you let yourself be moved before ending the assault?
I believe that bigtexx is in Europe on vacation. He said something to that effect about fifty pages ago.
For someone who is so dead set on claiming to be on the fence, you ferociously defend George Zimmerman at every turn, without fail. I wonder why.
Someone has to counteract all the convictions that take place here. You may call it trolling; I think of it as furthering discussion and debate-- note the forum name. Personally I'm pretty sure that GZ is guilty of something-- what I'm not sure-- at least bad judgment but probably more. But he's been labeled a racist in spite of his record of assisting minority kids and, oh yeah, he's a minority himself. This is a situation gone way wrong but a sloppy conviction in the court of public opinion is not going to make it right.
I believe giddyup has stated repeatedly that his personal opinion is that Zimmerman should be convicted of manslaughter in the end. That doesn't compute with your statement above. Just because someone doesn't join in with the lynch mob and mentions some other aspects as well shouldn't make them the object of anger and hate.
I haven't been that specific, but yes anyone guilty should be convicted and receive appropriate punishment. Why am I not surprised that ATW sees this particular forum for the one way street it has always been....
We know he is the shooter. There is no lack of evidence for that. The question is about self defense. Does the law protect people that chase after the person they ultimately kill? Is it reasonable for somebody to feel their life is threatened by an unarmed person they possess a significant weight advantage over? Since the lawmakers themselves have stated the law wasn't designed to protect what Zimmerman did, it means the law is flawed that it is even in discussion.
Couple of things. There is a fundamental difference in wanting to see both sides of a story presented, and presenting one sides arguments as facts, you are clearly doing the latter. Secondly I don't see anybody pulling the race card here since waaaay earlier in the thread, except to point out that Martin as targeted because he was black, not calling Zimmerman hitler or anything. With the voice on the 911 calls now almost confirmed as being Martins, how can you continue to say he was pummeling Zimmerman?
The new witness has been there all the time, but came forward to the media or the media to them recently. You haven't presented anything as a plausibility. You stated as if it were fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman. You can keep an open mind about what happened. But stating that as fact isn't keeping an open mind with so much evidence going against it. Or you could keep saying it was a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, but if you do, please don't pretend like you are keeping an open mind.
Like I said, its determined on a case by case situation. However, if you have any common sense, you should "accept" enough injuries that other people would justify your use of deadly force. I don't think a scratch on the head qualifies.
More evidence that it was Martin screaming right before the shot and not Zimmerman. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...eams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say Trayvon Martin case audio: Screams were not George Zimmerman's, 2 experts say The voice heard crying for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman, according to two forensic voice identification experts, the Orlando Sentinel reported Saturday. Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that he used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Zimmerman told police that he screamed for help during his confrontation with Martin, 17. He claims the shooting was self-defense. The 911 call, reposted in this YouTube clip, came on the night of Feb. 26 from a woman who reported someone crying out for help in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. In the recording of her phone call, panicked cries and a gunshot are heard. The Sentinel said it contacted Owen, who it described as a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound. He told the newspaper he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams. Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio. "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen told the Sentinel. But he also said he could not confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice. The Sentinel said that Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, used audio enhancement and human analysis and came to the same conclusion. Thousands of Trayvon supporters march to police station "I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau told the newspaper. "That's a young man screaming." On Feb. 26, Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, had called 911 to report a "suspicious" person and followed Martin against the dispatcher's advice. Martin and Zimmerman grappled, and Martin was shot in the chest. Zimmerman told police that he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin attacked him and slammed his head against the ground and that he shot in self defense. Police declined to arrest Zimmerman citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which gives wide latitude to use deadly force when a threat is perceived. The lack of an arrest in the case has brought protests across the country. In Sanford on Saturday, thousands of protesters marched to the police station.
From what I have been hearing is that Zimmerman's lawyer is basing his defense on the Stand Your Ground. It follows that if Zimmerman is tried and found not guilty it will be because the jury saw his defense was within the Stand Your Ground law. I understand why the writers of that law are making the argument that it doesn't apply here in that they don't want to see a backlash against it but from Zimmerman's POV I doubt he or his lawyer care about a backlash and will focus on that law.
Pretty damaging to the idea that Zimmerman was getting pounded and was forced to shoot Martin to save his life. If he had Martin screaming for help, it seems unlikely that the situation called for Zimmerman to shoot and kill the teen.
This is a basic problem with self-defense laws is that the how you determine what constitutes 'Serious / great bodily injury', 'imminent death / harm' and etc. is inherently subjective. Pretty much every self-defense law depends on a reasonable person standard which essentially means what does the DA, judge and jury think is reasonable. As I stated earlier I can believe that Zimmerman actually did believe he was under threat of serious injury and / or imminent death but just his own feeling isn't necessarily enough to legally justify his actions.
Weighing in about whether you can punch someone and not leave bruises on your knuckles. It is possible depending on how you hit them. Also if it is just a matter of striking someone in the face to take them down, break their nose and etc. It can be done. In self-defense classes I teach people to use the palm heel to strike which will cause minimal damage to your hand but can be as powerful as a punch. Whether Martin had that sort of training and was cognizant enough to use it I think is doubtful.
