Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by remirol

Stop fooling yourself.

Simple battery... such as a punch in the nose... is not a felony nor is it attempted murder.

A broken nose is 'bodily harm' under 784.03, but is none of the latter three in .041, nor would a reasonable person be expected to conclude so; a broken nose indicates "fistfight", not "life-or-death situation".

The TL;DR version: George doesn't have a case under 782.02.

I think you missed the word attempt in the statute, and the idea that it was stopped before it became felony assault.

Originally Posted by remirol

Originally Posted by remirol

Nothing in this statute specifies any level of injuries that must be sustained by the defendant, but to attempt to claim that this makes the injuries George actually suffered a non-factor is a wilful disregard for reality. It's going to be very hard to convince a jury that George had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of "great bodily harm" when the pictures and medical report show that he had no more than a busted nose and a couple of scrapes.

I look forward to any attempt by O'Mara to introduce the "TM was going for my gun" version of events in court, because it will be a experience... probably not so much for George's side though.

I guess we'll see. I look forward to seeing what evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that that will disprove TM was going for the gun.

Originally Posted by remirol

I would expect O'Mara to instead go down the road of "George had no idea what TM was going to do to him, all he knew was that he had gotten hit in the nose, so he reacted the only way he could think of at the time". He needs to play on the sympathies of the jury as much as he can, because the bare facts of the case are still that George saw someone he thought was suspicious, escalated the situation in an unwarranted manner even though as a NW member, he was expected to know better, and ended up shooting an unarmed kid. Expect the prosecution to bang on that a LOT, by the way.

Yet not illegal. It may not have been the best judgement, but it wasn't illegal, and didn't justify being assaulted as he claims. When the facts are considered and not the sympathies, there won't be anything there to overcome reasonable doubt.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

I don't think it sounds like George is in a full run. Perhaps a fast waddle.

He's talking about TM, who ran, didn't run, couldn't say how he ran, then, on Hannity, GZ gave us the skip to the loo my darlin' version: Trayvon was actually 'skipping.'

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by remirol

*sigh* Here's the thing. Only George knows exactly what he did that night. Martin can't give his version of events, because he's dead by George's hand, and that particular fact is not in dispute.

Because of that, the only way George gets out of big trouble on this is if he can convince a jury that it was self-defense. George knows it, everyone knows it, you get the idea. So, of course, George's statements are all completely predictable -- they will always be some form of "I didn't do it", or "I was attacked first", or any of a number of things that would tend to support his claim of self-defense. And they will be that way regardless of what actually happened that night.

In short: George has every incentive to lie, and unlike the state of Florida, _we_ are not obliged to provisionally accept his statements as true. (I can't find the statute right now, but I'm pretty sure there's something in FLA law WRT this sort of thing that says, paraphrased: if there aren't any other witnesses we're going to accept what the only living guy says as true by default)

From my non-obligated perspective, I think that everything George said _after_ he shot TM is not particularly worthwhile for determining the truth of what happened that night, unless it is inherently inculpatory or indicates that George is lying about something else he said. Until TM dies though, George has no reason to lie, so the NEN call is an extremely important piece of information, and probably why Dan O has taken it apart literally piece by piece.

Rare Truth approves this message.

[KatieG]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

He's talking about TM, who ran, didn't run, couldn't say how he ran, then, on Hannity, GZ gave us the skip to the loo my darlin' version: Trayvon was actually 'skipping.'

Because so many teen age boys skip these days!

[remirol]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Yet not illegal. It may not have been the best judgement, but it wasn't illegal

Can you explain for me why you think the legality of George's actions is relevant to whether or not he will be able to claim self-defense here under the appropriate statutes?

Quote:

and didn't justify being assaulted as he claims.

Can you explain for me the relevance of whether anything about TM's actions needs to be "justified"?

In case you didn't read what you snipped above, FLA statute can be read very simply: It isn't reasonable to respond to simple battery with deadly force. You're not allowed to shoot someone because they punched you in the nose.

It's clear that TM punched George in the nose, because he did have a busted and bloody nose, after all. However, that still is only simple battery, and as I have said elsewhere, simple battery is indicative of "fistfight" and not anything that would meet the definitions of justifiable force in 782 or 776.

Quote:

When the facts are considered and not the sympathies, there won't be anything there to overcome reasonable doubt.

Of course, George has already lost one case by proxy on this. (cf. HOA/insurance settlement).

[Rare Truth]

And now for a little musical interlude...

♫ ♫ Some folks ride like the wind
With the whispering pines to guide them
And the burning light inside them
Keeps them warm in the snow

Others fear the sounds they hear
Makin' bandito's out of mole-hills
Fill their hearts with porcupine quills
They’re dead and buried long before they go

Charlton Heston movies are no longer in demand
His immortal soul my lay forever in the sand
The angels wouldn’t take him up to heaven like he planned
‘Cause they couldn’t pry that gun from his cold dead hand...

[phonebook]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

He's talking about TM, who ran, didn't run, couldn't say how he ran, then, on Hannity, GZ gave us the skip to the loo my darlin' version: Trayvon was actually 'skipping.'

When GZ says "He ran", I've always been under the impression that he meant that the "suspect" had fled the area at that point. When he says "****, he's running", I've also been under the impression that that was more an indicator that this "guy" was attempting to flee, or elude GZ, but not necessarily taking off in a full sprint, etc.

We're relying on GZ's perception of what he's seeing though. Was TM actually acting in ways that many people would perceive as suspicious, when GZ felt that way? What about GZ's perception that TM was attempting to flee? Was he accurate with that perception or was it another flawed judgement like the initial suspicion?

[Cuddles]

This thread has become rather long again, so please take the discussion to the new continuation thread here.

Posted By:Cuddles