Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was quoting directly from the statements of two doctors who had reviewed the autopsy.
And thats what I previously wrote. When apparently you didn't understand the meaning of immediate vs instantaneous. In fact, if someone dies in the next few seconds after being shot I'd call that immediate if not instantaneous.
I really do think (and note - this is my personal opinion) that Martin was in no condition to say anything. He was obviously in a LOT of pain. Gurgle maybe. Moan likely. On the other hand, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Quibble as you will. "Yuh got me " is a totally silly remark. I don't think he said anything of the kind (IMO).
I saw Bugs Bunny say that after being shot by Elmer Fudd. "You got me, Doc."
There was a Security Guard "crime report" on me once, where the attacking security guard wrote: "After I demanded repeatedly for him to answer whether or not he intended to obey my orders to change his work method, per my instruction, in the future, defendant responded: "I won't! I won't!
What I really said, was, "no" - once!
There was a guard-type "reason" for the security guard to misquote "no" to "I won't! I won't".
It's called "case building" to shield and justify the security guard from charges of inappropriate action.
Last edited by Nonarchist; 06-06-2013 at 09:24 AM..
This is from a 2008 FL. Appellate court decision that appears to differ with your explanation of the burden of proof in cases where self defense is asserted ---
1. When the defense of self-defense is asserted, a defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force.
2. Law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability.
3. Defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable.
4. Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
5. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that a defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State.
Is that no longer the law, or is there a reason why the standards in the gz case are different.
Zimmerman is going to have a tough time producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case[/b] demonstrating the justifiable use of force.
He turned down the offer to go to the hospital a couple of times. And refused to schedule an appointment with an ENT (ear, nose, throat) specialist the next day.
True. My mistake. Didn't read carefully the post in re what was stated on autopsy report. Also, it has been a long time since I looked at the autopsy report. I do look forward to hearing the M.E. testimony. I am wondering if ME will offer an opinion in re the distance between the gun and the gunshot wound which is more specific than the range given in the autopsy report.
Btw, HLN is showing a hearing in the Zimmerman case (may have taken place earlier this a.m.) and the camera shots of Zimmerman are interesting. He is sitting there trying not to show any facial expressions.........looks like his legal team may be getting through to him about how serious this is, how he should behave in court, and that it's not a TV crime show!
clickorlando.com is streaming the full hearing. My pc has an awful time with videos, so I'll tune in hln, muted until the hearing is on.
This is from a 2008 FL. Appellate court decision that appears to differ with your explanation of the burden of proof in cases where self defense is asserted ---
Is that no longer the law, or is there a reason why the standards in the gz case are different.
Having read Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), ( can't find Fowler v. State, right now but) but that would be the current standard.
Panties in a bunch much?? Since you think you are so damn smart, quote me where I make claims about the autopsy report. It appears you have a problem distinguishing one post(er) from another. Show me where I support TM? Although, I don't put much value into what GZ has said because he has proven himself to be a liar on more than one occasion. As for TM, he doesn't have a voice in this does he??
Apparently you can't keep track of who said what. Pretty much like GZ who can't keep track of what he said. Maybe you two have something in common?
If you want to address people making stuff up, talk to GZ. He seems to be really good at that. Just look at the video where GZs makes a ton of shiit up. But you go right ahead and believe what you say and GZ if it makes you feel good.
My panties in a bunch ? Sounds like your whole nightie is stuffed up your butt.
If I could talk to gz, I would. I'd have a big chart of his contraditions and ask if there's any way he could reconcile them. I expect the state will have a big powerpoint presentation with those contradictions for the jury.
Your question --- 'As for TM, he doesn't have a voice in this does he??' --- that's a toughie
Even if the jury believes that Martin struck Zimmerman first, Florida statute is clear; Zimmerman had a clear duty to:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I have not found this statute. Please provide the statute number.
However I have found the following Florida Statute that says GZ did not have to retreat:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
I have not found this statute. Please provide the statute number.
However I have found the following Florida Statute that says GZ did not have to retreat:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
You want to look at All of 776.041. Not just the quoted sections.
I have not found this statute. Please provide the statute number.
However I have found the following Florida Statute that says GZ did not have to retreat:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
And why is it impossible for you to consider the possibility that Trayvon felt HIS life was in danger?
If Zimmerman didn't have to "retreat," why should Trayvon?
We don't know who spoke first, what was said, or who made the first move physically. It is entirely possible that Trayvon was the one acting in self defense. At this point, all we have is Zimmerman's word - which doesn't say much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty much like GZ who can't keep track of what he said. Maybe you two have something in common? 
