Zimmerman sues NBC

NoDrama · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
I'm sure you know that scalp woulds are famously bloody. So the 45% blood coverage doesn't mean that much. Once the blood was cleaned up, the lacerations were few and small. The jury will see that as well.
But you might be right. I can't predict what a jury will make of it. cn

So in other words the wounds were not life threatening and zimm should have known that therefore he couldn't really be in fear for his life? Is that where this is heading?

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

NoDrama said:
So in other words the wounds were not life threatening and zimm should have known that therefore he couldn't really be in fear for his life? Is that where this is heading?

Yeah, it is pretty silly. You don't have a right to self defense until you are mortally wounded. Mere, "marginally life threatening" injuries are just not enough.

cannabineer · Dec 17, 2012

NoDrama said:
So in other words the wounds were not life threatening and zimm should have known that therefore he couldn't really be in fear for his life? Is that where this is heading?

We already know that Z's wounds weren't life-threatening. Z knew this as well; as he declined a hospital visit that same night.
I'm not dismissing Z's fear at the time he received attention from T. I am questioning if it was appropriate however. I suspect but don't assert that Z's most serious injuries were to his pride. Humiliated men with guns are dangerous, as T seems possibly to have found out. cn

cannabineer · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
Yeah, it is pretty silly. You don't have a right to self defense until you are mortally wounded. Mere, "marginally life threatening" injuries are just not enough.

I have reason to imagine that Z pursued and assailed T, and was surprised by T's capacity to defend HIMself. I don't know this to be fact, but you don't know for a fact that Z's self-defense claim is legitimate. All will hinge on what happened during the unwitnessed interval, and what is deduced about it from the unpublicized evidence. cn

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
I'm sure you know that scalp woulds are famously bloody. So the 45% blood coverage doesn't mean that much. Once the blood was cleaned up, the lacerations were few and small. The jury will see that as well.
But you might be right. I can't predict what a jury will make of it. cn

I do know that. Do you know that fractured skulls are notoriously life threatening? Do you know that skull against concrete often results in fractured skull?

How long does an attacker have to bash your head against the concrete walk before you decide that you have had enough? When your skull is bashed against the side walk, do you calmly whisper inwardly, "not to fear, scalp wounds are notoriously bloody, soon this young man will tire and then we can discuss this like civilized people."

NoDrama · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
We already know that Z's wounds weren't life-threatening. Z knew this as well; as he declined a hospital visit that same night.
I'm not dismissing Z's fear at the time he received attention from T. I am questioning if it was appropriate however. I suspect but don't assert that Z's most serious injuries were to his pride. Humiliated men with guns are dangerous, as T seems possibly to have found out. cn

His pride was hurt? Looks more like his nose and head to me.

If I am barreling at you with a sword, you are not allowed to defend yourself until I actually put it through you, after all, I might miss completely, which would not be life threatening at all, same if I hold a gun to your head. You are not allowed to defend yourself until you receive a wound that kills you.
This seems to be your position.

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
We already know that Z's wounds weren't life-threatening. Z knew this as well; as he declined a hospital visit that same night.
I'm not dismissing Z's fear at the time he received attention from T. I am questioning if it was appropriate however. I suspect but don't assert that Z's most serious injuries were to his pride. Humiliated men with guns are dangerous, as T seems possibly to have found out. cn

And that is all that counts.

cannabineer · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
I do know that. Do you know that fractured skulls are notoriously life threatening? Do you know that skull against concrete often results in fractured skull?

How long does an attacker have to bash your head against the concrete walk before you decide that you have had enough? When your skull is bashed against the side walk, do you calmly whisper inwardly, "not to fear, scalp wounds are notoriously bloody, soon this young man will tire and then we can discuss this like civilized people."

It has not been proven (and UB has made a good argument against) that the fight didn't take place on the lawn. In that instance, threat of skull fracture is low. Since Z declined the hospital visit, he himself must have considered skull fracture unlikely.

NoDrama said:
His pride was hurt? Looks more like his nose and head to me.

If I am barreling at you with a sword, you are not allowed to defend yourself until I actually put it through you, after all, I might miss completely, which would not be life threatening at all, same if I hold a gun to your head. You are not allowed to defend yourself until you receive a wound that kills you.
This seems to be your position.

My position is that Z chased T. That invalidates self-defense if T reacted to Z's pursuit.
Your sword example ignores what led to the drawing of the blade in the first place. Imo that is where the hinge of the whole story is. A person carrying a concealed weapon is held to a higher standard of care than an unarmed citizen. A basic plank of that higher standard is "avoid conflict". Z spectacularly violated that when he went after T despite the dispatcher's advice; that is established. And yes I know the dispatcher had no authority, but that doesn't diminish the wisdom of the advice. cn

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
It has not been proven (and UB has made a good argument against) that the fight didn't take place on the lawn. In that instance, threat of skull fracture is low. Since Z declined the hospital visit, he himself must have considered skull fracture unlikely.

My position is that Z chased T. That invalidates self-defense if T reacted to Z's pursuit.
Your sword example ignores what led to the drawing of the blade in the first place. Imo that is where the hinge of the whole story is. A person carrying a concealed weapon is held to a higher standard of care than an unarmed citizen. A basic plank of that higher standard is "avoid conflict". Z spectacularly violated that when he went after T despite the dispatcher's advice; that is established. And yes I know the dispatcher had no authority, but that doesn't diminish the wisdom of the advice. cn

I don't know where you live, but in Florida Zimmerman still had a legal right to use lethal force even if he was the aggressor. Of course this is just idle and ungrounded speculation on your part.

I call your attention to Zimmerman's response to the dispatcher's advice:

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
Zimmerman: "OK"

It is self evident that Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher's advice, even though he did not have to do so.

My great grand father advised me to invest in computer start up companies in 1980. It was wise advise.

cannabineer · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
I don't know where you live, but in Florida Zimmerman still had a legal right to use lethal force even if he was the aggressor. Of course this is just idle and ungrounded speculation on your part.

I call your attention to Zimmerman's response to the dispatcher's advice:

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
Zimmerman: "OK"

It is self evident that Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher's advice, even though he did not have to do so.

My great grand father advised me to invest in computer start up companies in 1980. It was wise advise.

Even in Florida that right is circumscribed. Imo that is why there is this focus on reasonable fear of life. It would give Z a technical out even if the rest of it: chasing T, picking a fight, getting surprised and shooting him in the chest ... was true.
And that could indeed lead to acquittal. I'm not arguing otherwise.
But i will add a purely personal observation. If Z provoked this fight and gets acquitted on the technicality, that's just plain wrong.

I am curious about one thing though. To me it's self-evident that Z did not follow the dispatcher's advice; after all he didn't stay with his truck. I would like to know how you and I conclude the reverse from the same premises. I'm not seeing it. cn

NoDrama · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
It has not been proven (and UB has made a good argument against) that the fight didn't take place on the lawn. In that instance, threat of skull fracture is low. Since Z declined the hospital visit, he himself must have considered skull fracture unlikely.

My position is that Z chased T. That invalidates self-defense if T reacted to Z's pursuit.
Your sword example ignores what led to the drawing of the blade in the first place. Imo that is where the hinge of the whole story is. A person carrying a concealed weapon is held to a higher standard of care than an unarmed citizen. A basic plank of that higher standard is "avoid conflict". Z spectacularly violated that when he went after T despite the dispatcher's advice; that is established. And yes I know the dispatcher had no authority, but that doesn't diminish the wisdom of the advice. cn

What law says that firearm owners must avoid conflict? If anything a firearm can at least give people the courage to at least investigate or stand up to crime.

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
Even in Florida that right is circumscribed. Imo that is why there is this focus on reasonable fear of life. It would give Z a technical out even if the rest of it: chasing T, picking a fight, getting surprised and shooting him in the chest ... was true.
And that could indeed lead to acquittal. I'm not arguing otherwise.
But i will add a purely personal observation. If Z provoked this fight and gets acquitted on the technicality, that's just plain wrong.

I am curious about one thing though. To me it's self-evident that Z did not follow the dispatcher's advice; after all he didn't stay with his truck. I would like to know how you and I conclude the reverse from the same premises. I'm not seeing it. cn

I don't consider having one's head bashed against the sidewalk a technicality.

He was away from his truck when the dispatcher gave him the advice. He was returning to his truck.

I too am mystified how you (or anybody) can look at:
1. the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and the complete lack of injuries sustained by Martin.
2. the eye witness statement that Martin was aboard Zimmerman pummeling him.
3. the 45 seconds of recording where we hear Zimmerman screaming for help.
4. the fact that Zimmerman called the police BEFORE the whole incident.
5. the statements of the responding police officer, and fire department EMT personnel, which corroborate Zimmerman's account.
6. the fact that no charges were brought against Zimmerman until after LOTS of race-based political pressure.
7. the fact that Zimmerman took and passed a lie detector test the morning after the shooting.
8. the fact that Zimmerman cooperated completely with police after the shooting.
9. the fact that NBC and ABC tag teamed each other to lie about the whole incident.
10. the fact that the affidavit of probable cause is an empty vessel.
11. After hearing the term, "white-hispanic" in the unbiased reporting of network television.
12. After listening to UB wander far and wide in his eye witness testimony to the whole incident.
13...

It's a fucking avalanche of circumstantial evidence, physical evidence, and witness testimony that only points to one logical conclusion.

redivider · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
I don't consider having one's head bashed against the sidewalk a technicality.

He was away from his truck when the dispatcher gave him the advice. He was returning to his truck.

I too am mystified how you (or anybody) can look at:
1. the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and the complete lack of injuries sustained by Martin. Complete lack of injuries, except for that bullet hole, of course...
2. the eye witness statement that Martin was aboard Zimmerman pummeling him.
3. the 45 seconds of recording where we hear Zimmerman screaming for help. That's Martin, not Z.
4. the fact that Zimmerman called the police BEFORE the whole incident. On the 911 call you clearly hear him say he's following Z
5. the statements of the responding police officer, and fire department EMT personnel, which corroborate Zimmerman's account. Zimmermans account changed multiple times, we don't know the truth, just the story that is most convenient for him
6. the fact that no charges were brought against Zimmerman until after LOTS of race-based political pressure. that's an opinion. a re-evaluation of the facts led to him being charged.
7. the fact that Zimmerman took and passed a lie detector test the morning after the shooting. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court because of their unreliability.
8. the fact that Zimmerman cooperated completely with police after the shooting. he lied to police and the courts about what happened and his finances.
9. the fact that NBC and ABC tag teamed each other to lie about the whole incident. that's an opinion.
10. the fact that the affidavit of probable cause is an empty vessel. the affidavit was enough for charges to be filed.
11. After hearing the term, "white-hispanic" in the unbiased reporting of network television. ? this doesn't make sense.
12. After listening to UB wander far and wide in his eye witness testimony to the whole incident. nobody has wondered more that zimmerman
13...

It's a fucking avalanche of circumstantial evidence, physical evidence, and witness testimony that only points to one logical conclusion.

circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. circumstantial evidence puts Z at the scene of the crime shooting an innocent teen on his way home.

desert dude · Dec 17, 2012

redivider said:
circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. circumstantial evidence puts Z at the scene of the crime shooting an innocent teen on his way home.

Astonishing...

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2012

NoDrama said:
Of course not, UB has already told us that when you get a broken nose your eyes all go black and swell up so that you cannot see, plus the pain is so excruciating that even a morphine drip will barely take the edge off. You can forget walking or talking, all impossible with a broken nose. according to UB anyway.

yet he did not appear to be in any pain at the station less than an hour later. not even a wince.

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2012

NoDrama said:
So in other words the wounds were not life threatening and zimm should have known that therefore he couldn't really be in fear for his life? Is that where this is heading?

tiny scratches on the scalp are not life threatening.

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
I do know that. Do you know that fractured skulls are notoriously life threatening? Do you know that skull against concrete often results in fractured skull?

How long does an attacker have to bash your head against the concrete walk before you decide that you have had enough? When your skull is bashed against the side walk, do you calmly whisper inwardly, "not to fear, scalp wounds are notoriously bloody, soon this young man will tire and then we can discuss this like civilized people."

zimm's skull was not fractured and there is zero evidence of skull to concrete contact. all the witnesses saw it happen in the grass. all of them.

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
And that is all that counts.

false. his credibility and judgment (see: lack thereof) will be on trial too.

Mindmelted · Dec 17, 2012

bullshit on the broken nose bit

UncleBuck · Dec 17, 2012

desert dude said:
I don't know where you live, but in Florida Zimmerman still had a legal right to use lethal force even if he was the aggressor. Of course this is just idle and ungrounded speculation on your part.

I call your attention to Zimmerman's response to the dispatcher's advice:

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
Zimmerman: "OK"

It is self evident that Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher's advice, even though he did not have to do so.

My great grand father advised me to invest in computer start up companies in 1980. It was wise advise.

you're ignoring the facts. zimm pursued and searched the whole time, he said so himself, idiot.

Zimmerman sues NBC

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member