BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

X ` Man[_3_]

On 4/30/12 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:14:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:26:00 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote:

... a kid who was beating the **** out of him.

How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you
thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. If
Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to
the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating
the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it
and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and
observation.

According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well.

Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because
you're a conservative in the south.

The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great
bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head
from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before
he had the right to defend himself.

Maybe it is different up where you live.

I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. Any sign of trauma to the
head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the
liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs
work for.

He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911
dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for
his life? Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to
a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? They guy promoted and
invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to
rule the day? Ridiculous.

I suppose it all comes down to the difference between pursuit and
simply following with the intent of maintaining visual contact.

Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal
test. His story is that he lost sight of Martin and was approached
from behind as he returned to his truck.
Until the government comes up with evidence to break this story, the
case will go nowhere. The state's investigator said he did not have
any evidence about who initiated the confrontation at the bail
hearing.
Maybe Corey thinks she can have a "Jack McCoy" moment if she gets
Zimmerman on the stand but the chances are that he will never
testify.
The only real question now is if this simply gets tossed at an
immunity hearing and when that might happen.

He didn't just pursue him, he confronted him with a loaded pistol in
his possession. Zimmerman's account will be shredded by his own call
to 911. He invited this tragedy and deserves to account for the
killing of a teenager who had every right to be where he was.

Cite?
I saw nowhere in that phone call where Zimmerman said any more than
that he was following Martin. He never said he approached Martin. In
fact his statement was that Martin confronted Zimmerman.

For your own reasons you have decided that Zimmerman chased and shot
Martin for no reason yet there is no evidence to support that.
When the defendant is a white guy, he suddenly loses his right to the
benefit of a doubt from the left. You prefer speculation from people
who were 1500-3000 miles away.

I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would
have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because
there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there.