At 3/31/12 08:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Ask any instructor who teaches people how to fight and ask them if banging someones head against the ground is considered a submission.
I've seen no evidence that Martin knew how to fight or any of this. I could see how someone would think that hitting another person's head on the ground could subdue them. It doesn't mean it's the best or most optimal move, or that it doesn't have possible nasty effects.
What is the difference? Bashing the back of somebodies head on the ground can easily cause more serious damage then a curb stomp. It's just not as iconic.
No, there's a major difference. Zimmerman is proof that you can 'repeatedly' slam someone's head into the ground without causing any injuries of note. A curb stomp will always cause serious injury.
If you are getting beat over and over when you're screaming for help, then yes, it does justify it. The other party showed no intent to stop. And how do you know it was light smashing? The head is thick as fuck, you can take a whole bunch of potentially fatal damage with no indication besides pain.
Yes, the head can. Yet, let's remember that Zimmerman is bald. Skin on bone (skin with little to no tissue between it an bone) bruises and scrapes like nobody's business. If the head smashign was more than light or superficial, he'd have mo0re than some cuts and bruises that are so light a relatively clear security camera cannot spot any of them. Also, Zimmerman has never once claimed that he felt woozy or dizzy like there were internal effects.
Your argument is basically "Getting your head smashed to the ground isn't that bad. Therefore, no self-defense is required"
That is a piss porr reading of my posts and you know it. I am saying that while head smashing is grounds for self defense, and could be ground for the use of lethal force in self defense, head smashing without something more does not automatically jump to the point of lethal self defense. In other words, his self defense claim is good enough to come out at trial, and it has a good possibility of winning at trial, but it is not so unequivocal, so definitive, so conclusive as to stop the issue before it goes to trial.
That's the thing. Zimmerman had no other options besides take the brunt of it all with no help in sight or any signs of stopping, or use lethal force.
Sure, Zimmerman may claim that, but the physical evidence (i.e. his lack of any real injury from the head smashing), the fact that he followed Martin after being politely nudged to stop (and against the rules of theneighborhood watch), and the fact that Zimmerman does nto appear to be a small guy, all really just put a strong layer of skepticism toward his story, or at least the level of danger he believed he was in.
That wasn't what you wanted though.
That is what I wanted. If Zimmerman started the fight, then his self defense claim disappears.
How so? Both involve potentially fatal damage that leaves no outside indication besides pain, and the longer you do it for, the greater the chances rise at a non-constant level.
Blunt force to a skin on bone area does leave outside marks. Strangling is intended to deprive the other of the oxygen needed to live. Hitting another person, even if it is the head, does not have a singular and extremely life threatening intent.
"No we don't, we have witnesses saying exactly what you described but you're wrong somehow." Where was he asked not to? Seriously, source me this. He was told it wasn't needed. Huge difference.
He was told by dispatch that it was not needed, yes. But really, is Zimmerman so stupid as to not realize that the statement meant back off? Also, it was against the rules of the neighborhood watch. Explicity against the rules. If I remember right, he was chastized for doing the same thing before.
If Martin sees the gun prior to head smashing, why the fuck would he stop or approach Zimmerman? Those missing facts?
Unlike light and superficial head smashing, seeing a gun on a person who is acting agressively toward you (such as following you in the middle of the night) does create a presumption that a reasonable person would feel their life is threatened. Some people, when threatened with a gun, will try to subdue the person with the gun. Nothing in Zimmerman's story (which is no doubt self serving) expressly rules this out. None of the witness or other evidence does either.
go ahead and cite them. Until then, it's all conjecture on your behalf.
So, according to you, the lack of any facts means they automatically must favor Zimmerman, as he (who has no reason to be biased about this whatsoever) is the only person to listen to?
Nobody claimed neither should happen
Adr has expressly stated this should never go to trial. Also, by arguing that head smashing is 100% of the time per se reason to kill, are arguing for an interpretation that causes this case to not go to trial based on the Florida Law. So while you may not expressly have stated this, you are still arguing it.
When your only options are "scream for help" or "Shoot the guy with a legal firearm bashing your head against the ground" you are allowed to use deadly force. Ask any lawyer about that in a state with self-defense laws.
Any lawyer who tells you that you absolutely can do lethal self defense in any scenario, especially one that is not as clear cut, is not worth the paper their BAR Certificate is printed on. Self defense is extremely fact based, and even times where lethal weapons are brandished could end up not being grounds for lethal self defense.
Except the part where it is. That can cause serious or fatal injury to a person very easily, while the first few don't hurt.
Yeah, when it is hard. However the evidence at hand here strongly disputes the claim that the head smashing was anything but superficial. Superficial hand to hand contact is not automatic grounds for self defense. It needs to be proven by a clear and convincing standrad to the jury. If a jury looked at the fact of this case after they were presented in a trial and determined that Zimmerman was in the right in using lethal force for self defense, I'd be fine with their determination. However, I am not comfortable with determining that conclusion before a trial has even started. There is enough question, about the injury factor of head smashing, what happened to start the altercation, and other things to create enough doubt to bring it to trial.
Possible=! Enough to arrest somebody. Zimm was on the phone with police, trying to get them there, with a witne
When a guy claims that be in fear of his life from another who had no weapons, no cohorts, and had not yet injured, made signs that he was escalating, or made statements about his intent, the police should be skeptical enough to investigate further. There is more than enough evidence to convict on manslaughter+ without the self defense claim. That coupled with the shakiness of the story is more than enough probable cause to take this to trial. It should have gone to trial.