Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 If he were following you in the dark and picked up his pace when you started running away. Hell yeah.. Trayvon, who was a 17 yr old KID, who did not know what Zimmerman's intentions were...George does have a propensity for violence. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 If he were following you in the dark and picked up his pace when you started running away. Hell yeah.. Trayvon, who was a 17 yr old KID, who did not know what Zimmerman's intentions were...George does have a propensity for violence. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Didnt Trayvon have a right to stand is ground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 If he were following you in the dark and picked up his pace when you started running away. Hell yeah.. Trayvon, who was a 17 yr old KID, who did not know what Zimmerman's intentions were...George does have a propensity for violence. :) I was following the guy in MY neighborhood and you still didnt answer my question. If I had gotten out of my car, would that act justify him beating me to within an inch of my life? By the way, the "running away theory" simply wont wash. If he wanted to run away, a 17 year old kid has absolutely no problem in escaping the "speed" of an overweight older guy. ( please note that I did not choose to post this response 3 separate times) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAMFAM10 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Nash Zimmerman was not beat within a inch of his life. Don't screw things to prove a point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 So you dont believe that if someone has their head banged against the curb repeatedly that one of those bangings will eventually kill him? And, of course, if he was beaten "only" to within a foot of his life instead of an inch", does that change anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAMFAM10 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Had no life threatening injuries Zimmerman claims he was getting his head repeatedly smashed.. You dont think the back of his head would look alot different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I guess your point is, it was ok for Trayvon Martin to take measures to protect himself but it wasnt for George Zimmerman? How is it that the "fleet footed" Zimmerman managed to catch lead foot Martin in what you allege was a chase? Its also worth noting that you want to use evidence in some circumstances but prefer speculation in others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Had no life threatening injuries Zimmerman claims he was getting his head repeatedly smashed.. You dont think the back of his head would look alot different. Probably would have looked worse had he not gotten him off of him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Didnt Trayvon have a right to stand is ground? Not if he came back. The stand your ground laws have nothing to do with who threw the first blow or various other questions/excuses that people can come up with. SYG laws say that if you otherwise have the lawful right (as determined by the laws of that state) of self defense, you do not have to turn your back on your attacker. TX even required running away until fairly recently but even that had a way to get out of that requirement. SYG simply takes the question of required running out of it. It does not change the part of the law that says self defense or SYG do not apply if you caused or took part in the conflict in the first place. You can go start a fight either physically or by taunting and then let the other guy hit you and claim self defense. Well, you can claim it but the law says that it is not self defense at that point. To make it the most plain and simple, let's take a fight in junior high school. I must have seen a couple of dozen of them when usually boys were mad for some reason or another. They would square off with each other and sometimes would even meet somewhere like by the bike rack. Neither can successfully claim SYG as they were both willing participants in the fight no matter who started it or threw the first punch. To read opinions on the internet, they commit no crime because they both had self defense and both had SYG. That is ridiculous and does not comply with law. If two guys get into a fight in a bar and one dies, it will likely be ruled as murder in court unless one was a completely unwilling participant and tried to disengage from the conflict. "Could" Martin have had a legal claim of self defense and in doing so, also claim SYG? The legal answer is yes however there is nothing in this case to support that. There is audio evidence and the girl's testimony that it did not happen that way. The 911 recording is particularly damning for the claims that Martin was a non-participant and was merely going about his business and was cornered by Zimmerman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I was following the guy in MY neighborhood and you still didnt answer my question. If I had gotten out of my car, would that act justify him beating me to within an inch of my life? By the way, the "running away theory" simply wont wash. If he wanted to run away, a 17 year old kid has absolutely no problem in escaping the "speed" of an overweight older guy. ( please note that I did not choose to post this response 3 separate times) I have been a Registered Nurse for 17 years. I have never heard of someone who has gotten beaten within an inch of his life not been life flighted to a trauma center. He had a head injury, didnt he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Zimmerman wad not overweight at the time he killed Martin. Didnt you see the pics? He was taken mma classes. He weighed 190 lbs, martin was around 140 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Had no life threatening injuries Zimmerman claims he was getting his head repeatedly smashed.. You dont think the back of his head would look alot different. Injuries have nothing to do with a claim of self defense. There is no legal requirement for there to be any injuries. There only has to be a "reasonable belief". If a person is getting his head cracked against the concrete and thinks that he is "about to be' injured seriously, he has the lawful right of the use of deadly force for self defense. Let's make up a scenario where Martin was cornered by Zimmerman and Zimmerman held a knife to Martin's throat. Martin by any means stops the attack even up to killing Zimmerman. When it is all over, Martin has no injuries. Did he not have the right to self defense with a knife to his neck? The obvious answer is that yes he would have the lawful right of deadly force in self defense. He had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. It does not matter if there are any injuries at all. Also, the use of force or deadly force in self defense does not require a fear of death as is repeated over and over in the media and on forums. It only requires a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury which in TX a broken bone can usually be sufficient by law. So if you think a guy is about to break your arm, you can justify deadly force in self defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Not if he came back. The stand your ground laws have nothing to do with who threw the first blow or various other questions/excuses that people can come up with. SYG laws say that if you otherwise have the lawful right (as determined by the laws of that state) of self defense, you do not have to turn your back on your attacker. TX even required running away until fairly recently but even that had a way to get out of that requirement. SYG simply takes the question of required running out of it. It does not change the part of the law that says self defense or SYG do not apply if you caused or took part in the conflict in the first place. You can go start a fight either physically or by taunting and then let the other guy hit you and claim self defense. Well, you can claim it but the law says that it is not self defense at that point. To make it the most plain and simple, let's take a fight in junior high school. I must have seen a couple of dozen of them when usually boys were mad for some reason or another. They would square off with each other and sometimes would even meet somewhere like by the bike rack. Neither can successfully claim SYG as they were both willing participants in the fight no matter who started it or threw the first punch. To read opinions on the internet, they commit no crime because they both had self defense and both had SYG. That is ridiculous and does not comply with law. If two guys get into a fight in a bar and one dies, it will likely be ruled as murder in court unless one was a completely unwilling participant and tried to disengage from the conflict. "Could" Martin have had a legal claim of self defense and in doing so, also claim SYG? The legal answer is yes however there is nothing in this case to support that. There is audio evidence and the girl's testimony that it did not happen that way. The 911 recording is particularly damning for the claims that Martin was a non-participant and was merely going about his business and was cornered by Zimmerman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Injuries have nothing to do with a claim of self defense. There is no legal requirement for there to be any injuries. There only has to be a "reasonable belief". If a person is getting his head cracked against the concrete and thinks that he is "about to be' injured seriously, he has the lawful right of the use of deadly force for self defense. Let's make up a scenario where Martin was cornered by Zimmerman and Zimmerman held a knife to Martin's throat. Martin by any means stops the attack even up to killing Zimmerman. When it is all over, Martin has no injuries. Did he not have the right to self defense with a knife to his neck? The obvious answer is that yes he would have the lawful right of deadly force in self defense. He had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. It does not matter if there are any injuries at all. Also, the use of force or deadly force in self defense does not require a fear of death as is repeated over and over in the media and on forums. It only requires a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury which in TX a broken bone can usually be sufficient by law. So if you think a guy is about to break your arm, you can justify deadly force in self defense. Zimmerman's brother was on pier morgan's show after the incident. He said that his brother had his head repeatedly slammed into the concrete. He also said that if his brother would've sustained one more blow, he would've been a vegetable and he would be changing his diapers. That story does not match rhe injuries, being beaten within an "inch of your life" (per steve nash) has serious physical implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Beaten within an inch, a foot, or a mile matters not. If you are being beaten, you are going to take whatever means necessary to terminate said beating. You are not going to lie there and think to yourself," well since there is little chance this will kill me, I will continue to accept it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Zimmerman's brother was on pier morgan's show after the incident. He said that his brother had his head repeatedly slammed into the concrete. He also said that if his brother would've sustained one more blow, he would've been a vegetable and he would be changing his diapers. That story does not match rhe injuries, being beaten within an "inch of your life" (per steve nash) has serious physical implications. You are trying to make an argument based on facts that do not matter. Like I gave earlier, if I held a knife to your throat and said that I was going to kill you, does it really matter if I had that intent or just wanted to play a cruel joke? From your prospective, you would reasonable be in fear and the use of force or deadly force would be justified. It doesn't matter what my intent was any more than it matters what a guy on trial for murder had his brother think. I doubt that his brother is in the medical professional and his claims about his brother are meaningless unless he was actually on the scene to witness what took place. In other words, what does it matter what his brother's story matched any more than Big Girl saying that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear? You can read thousands of opinions online from both sides of this or any other issue that are nothing but drivel. It matters no more that his brother thinks than it matters what I think. I do think this however, if I am with my back to the ground and my head is being slammed into the concrete, I am probably not going to have the chance to call "Time Out!" and go seek a neurosurgeon's opinion if I am really in danger or does it just seem like that. I think any person that is on the ground and getting his head hit is in fear of at the very least, losing consciousness and that alone justifies deadly force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 ....... and as a couple of jurors that "wanted" to convict him (their words) said, that is the same conclusion that they came to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 You are trying to make an argument based on facts that do not matter. Like I gave earlier, if I held a knife to your throat and said that I was going to kill you, does it really matter if I had that intent or just wanted to play a cruel joke? From your prospective, you would reasonable be in fear and the use of force or deadly force would be justified. It doesn't matter what my intent was any more than it matters what a guy on trial for murder had his brother think. I doubt that his brother is in the medical professional and his claims about his brother are meaningless unless he was actually on the scene to witness what took place. In other words, what does it matter what his brother's story matched any more than Big Girl saying that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear? You can read thousands of opinions online from both sides of this or any other issue that are nothing but drivel. It matters no more that his brother thinks than it matters what I think. I do think this however, if I am with my back to the ground and my head is being slammed into the concrete, I am probably not going to have the chance to call "Time Out!" and go seek a neurosurgeon's opinion if I am really in danger or does it just seem like that. I think any person that is on the ground and getting his head hit is in fear of at the very least, losing consciousness and that alone justifies deadly force. I am sure you wouldve gone to a hospital for testing after you got your head beaten into the concrete even if it happened only twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 George told too many different stories, he is lucky that I was not on the jury. He jumped me from behind, no from the front, wait he jumped out of the bushes ( whuch were two feet high). Etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted May 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 I am not buying it. Oh I forgot, Trayvon was a thug. Smh. Zimmerman is a big liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Translation: Big Girl mind is smarter than the collective mind of a jury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted May 18, 2014 Report Share Posted May 18, 2014 Translation: Big Girl mind is smarter than the collective mind of a jury ......... and is basing it on made up evidence. If Martin was a thug or a choir boy is of no consequence which is why I never got involved in those discussions on any forum. What happened a the scene is what matters, not if he had a potential college scholarship, was a good kid or had issues with the cops. Strangely however, the people that bring that up like people in this forum saying that an idiot Zimmerman was, think it means something about him. Apparently with Martin his past is of no consequence but with Zimmerman is does. I could care less about either and it has no bearing on the physical evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.