The trial of George Zimmerman

[golocx4]

Back on track here>>>>>>>> I want to know at what point and what action justifies Trayvon Martin or anyone else for punching out another individual, knocking them to the ground and continue pummeling them with impunity?

A few decades ago two men punching each other in the nose acceptable if the altercation was mutual. (mutual combat) then somewhere that wasn't good enough and you had to literally knock their brains out to make your point.

We used to have a code and if you did something wrong I could punch you in the nose. You then had an option, punch me back or apologize for your insulting action.

Now there is no more code, laws are no longer obeyed by officials, morals are all based on preferred method of orgasm, women are no longer revered as potential mothers but receptacles for randy boys, teen sex now includes 10 year old kids, and we have become a litigious society. If you are involved in a fight today, You are sued, the owner of your car is sued, the person that owned the property you fought on is sued. Someone, anyone that came in contact with you in the past year is sued by lawyers with bills to pay and payroll to meet.

Then came the violence is never acceptable crowd. What a crock of crap. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

Anyway, to answer your question: When a jury says so. Who is involved with that? More lawyers.

 

[tcox4freedom]

A few decades ago two men punching each other in the nose acceptable if the altercation was mutual. (mutual combat) then somewhere that wasn't good enough and you had to literally knock their brains out to make your point.

We used to have a code and if you did something wrong I could punch you in the nose. You then had an option, punch me back or apologize for your insulting action.

Now there is no more code, laws are no longer obeyed by officials, morals are all based on preferred method of orgasm, women are no longer revered as potential mothers but receptacles for randy boys, teen sex now includes 10 year old kids, and we have become a litigious society. If you are involved in a fight today, You are sued, the owner of your car is sued, the person that owned the property you fought on is sued. Someone, anyone that came in contact with you in the past year is sued by lawyers with bills to pay and payroll to meet.

Then came the violence is never acceptable crowd. What a crock of crap. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

Anyway, to answer your question: When a jury says so. Who is involved with that? More lawyers.

As far as I know SC still has the "Mutual Combat" code on the books. (If two people wish to fight, they can. However, if one of them tries to walk away and gets hit, the other is guilty of assault.)


-

 

[golocx4]

As far as I know SC still has the "Mutual Combat" code on the books. (If two people wish to fight, they can. However, if one of them tries to walk away and gets hit, the other is guilty of assault.)-

That is good to hear.
We must also consider the feminization of the American White Male. (or "White Men of Privilege" who own slaves aka employees)

In the animal kingdom, when two males of the same species fight each other, the fight will end with submission by the looser. When females fight (usually with non aborted fetuses nearby) they fight to the death.
This my explain the need to relentlessly beat your opponent until his brains are exposed and his jaw hangs uselessly down to his chest like an ill fitting necklace. We have been turned into girlymen.

 

[gejoslin]

That is good to hear.
We must also consider the feminization of the American White Male. (or "White Men of Privilege" who own slaves aka employees)

In the animal kingdom, when two males of the same species fight each other, the fight will end with submission by the looser. When females fight (usually with non aborted fetuses nearby) they fight to the death.
This my explain the need to relentlessly beat your opponent until his brains are exposed and his jaw hangs uselessly down to his chest like an ill fitting necklace. We have been turned into girlymen.

~
Well, some have! I do declare exception!

 

[BC1]

That is good to hear.
We must also consider the feminization of the American White Male. (or "White Men of Privilege" who own slaves aka employees)

In the animal kingdom, when two males of the same species fight each other, the fight will end with submission by the looser. When females fight (usually with non aborted fetuses nearby) they fight to the death.
This my explain the need to relentlessly beat your opponent until his brains are exposed and his jaw hangs uselessly down to his chest like an ill fitting necklace. We have been turned into girlymen.

Girly-men. NYC is full of them. You see a girly-man with a hammer in his hand... he's a hammer salesman.

 

[CapGun]

A few decades ago two men punching each other in the nose acceptable if the altercation was mutual. (mutual combat) then somewhere that wasn't good enough and you had to literally knock their brains out to make your point.

We used to have a code and if you did something wrong I could punch you in the nose. You then had an option, punch me back or apologize for your insulting action.

Now there is no more code, laws are no longer obeyed by officials, morals are all based on preferred method of orgasm, women are no longer revered as potential mothers but receptacles for randy boys, teen sex now includes 10 year old kids, and we have become a litigious society. If you are involved in a fight today, You are sued, the owner of your car is sued, the person that owned the property you fought on is sued. Someone, anyone that came in contact with you in the past year is sued by lawyers with bills to pay and payroll to meet.

Then came the violence is never acceptable crowd. What a crock of crap. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

Anyway, to answer your question: When a jury says so. Who is involved with that? More lawyers.

You are so right! You touch on something I have thought about for a long time. It pertains to that "code" you reference.
I am not a shrink but I guess I can play one here. The obscene violence that school kids exact on each other along with kids really going off the deep end. You know, the quiet kid that ends up killing another kid or who goes on a schoolmate massacre. There are many reasons that I won't list here but could one of them be?????
Zero tolerance! Little Johnny can not exhibit any aggression even if he was the victim and just fighting back. There is no outlet for them. They don't know what it is to settle a problem with the
"duke it out" therapy of the good old days. You know back when we believed there was such a thing as "fighting dirty" and it was not accepted. (please do not confuse my comment with hardcore street survival!) So no kid learns what it is like to get hit. He has no empathy for the other guy so it's ok to beat someone into oblivion. I can go on to explain more clearly but I hate typing. I just know you and others, especially the 55 and over crowd know what I mean. Please comment. I know you will be more eloquent.

 

[CapGun]

That is good to hear.
We must also consider the feminization of the American White Male. (or "White Men of Privilege" who own slaves aka employees)

In the animal kingdom, when two males of the same species fight each other, the fight will end with submission by the looser. When females fight (usually with non aborted fetuses nearby) they fight to the death.
This my explain the need to relentlessly beat your opponent until his brains are exposed and his jaw hangs uselessly down to his chest like an ill fitting necklace. We have been turned into girlymen.

Again, right on target. Girly-men.... That would be the "Wussification" of America!

 

[Bigcarlover]

Link Removed

 

[CapGun]

Not trying to contradict you, just offer another perspective, but I believe the reason Martin won't be shown to have been justified is that all the witnesses who had the potential to say he was justified for some reason, have already testified, and none of them saw that part of the altercation. In a baseball analogy, tie goes to the runner, with the tie being that either one of them *could have* started the fight, and the runner being the defendant, Zimmerman. If tie goes to the runner as far as who was the aggressor (statutorily-speaking), it's already over. The best the prosecution can do at this point is present statements and depositions that have some minor inconsistencies, but hey, the guy had his head pounded on and was described by the first witness to contact him after the shooting as "staggering around" and said he "squatted, trying to collect himself." On the significant facts, he hasn't been at all inconsistent, and all the witnesses support his story, whether they perceive otherwise or not. A couple or three said they saw GZ on top, but that was after the shooting, and is perfectly consistent with his story of how it looked as he tried to get out from under Martin's body. Even he says he was on top for a brief time. This trial has always been a political sham from the beginning.

I will be absolutely amazed at this point if Zimmerman ever takes the stand, which is fairly unusual in a self defense case. Such is the quality of the prosecution's case though. Their witnesses have already established a prima facie self defense case for the defendant they're prosecuting!

Blues

No contradiction from you Blues. I just felt if there was a way to get past all the crap and direct to my point the end would be the same as your scenario. Your scenario is part of the process and I agree with you. I just have little patience for the racist, idiot pot stirrers and pundits that put agenda ahead of the law! There I said ti.

 

[BluesStringer]

No contradiction from you Blues. I just felt if there was a way to get past all the crap and direct to my point the end would be the same as your scenario. Your scenario is part of the process and I agree with you. I just have little patience for the racist, idiot pot stirrers and pundits that put agenda ahead of the law! There I said ti.

Boy, so do I. Having lived through the Rodney King riots, I have no patience for those who either promote or succumb to race-baiting and violence. The very fact that Zimmerman is on trial right now is for no other reason than that a bunch of professional race-baiters who don't even live anywhere near Florida, much less Sanford, ginned up the whole country and portrayed GZ as a racist (with no evidence) and TM as a 13-year-old choir boy. Every objective evaluation of the available facts says to me that race had next to nothing to do with it (the only exception that's on the record now coming from Martin's friend-girl who said he referred to GZ in racially-charged language). The worst that can be proven at this point is that both people grossly misunderstood each others' motives for being there. Either or both of them could've used nothing more than their voices to avoid what happened. GZ could've identified himself as a neighborhood watcher and just innocently asked the kid if he could help him find his way without being confrontational in the least. TM could've just said something like, "Hi, my dad and I are here from Miami visiting his girlfriend. She lives in Unit #___" and been on his way without anything untoward happening. Neither of them had the wisdom within them to just make sure they understood who they were dealing with and why they were there. In any case, I could not agree more, the race-baiters have turned a local sad and tragic misunderstanding into something that has the potential to set fire to cities all across this country, and if that happens, blood will be on their hands, not Zimmerman's.

Blues

 

[SR40c]

Boy, so do I. Having lived through the Rodney King riots, I have no patience for those who either promote or succumb to race-baiting and violence. The very fact that Zimmerman is on trial right now is for no other reason than that a bunch of professional race-baiters who don't even live anywhere near Florida, much less Sanford, ginned up the whole country and portrayed GZ as a racist (with no evidence) and TM as a 13-year-old choir boy. Every objective evaluation of the available facts says to me that race had next to nothing to do with it (the only exception that's on the record now coming from Martin's friend-girl who said he referred to GZ in racially-charged language). The worst that can be proven at this point is that both people grossly misunderstood each others' motives for being there. Either or both of them could've used nothing more than their voices to avoid what happened. GZ could've identified himself as a neighborhood watcher and just innocently asked the kid if he could help him find his way without being confrontational in the least. TM could've just said something like, "Hi, my dad and I are here from Miami visiting his girlfriend. She lives in Unit #___" and been on his way without anything untoward happening. Neither of them had the wisdom within them to just make sure they understood who they were dealing with and why they were there. In any case, I could not agree more, the race-baiters have turned a local sad and tragic misunderstanding into something that has the potential to set fire to cities all across this country, and if that happens, blood will be on their hands, not Zimmerman's.

Blues

You are exactly right on the money. I talked to a woman just yesterday who is from Sanford. The conversation started with a comment from her about how she thought that Martin was merely trying to go to his father's house. I agreed with her on that but I also told her that Martin's initial motive wasn't the issue. She looked at me a little funny as I continued to explain to her that while neither party did anything against the law, it was Martin that got himself in to trouble by confronting Zimmerman then attacking him. I finished by telling her that if the two had one brain cell between them, the whole thing could have been avoided.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Hey Chen, As infantile as this is it was your wise A remark that I didn't understand what was involved to use deadly force and that I needed more training that I responded the way I did, You could not have gotten that impression if you understood what I wrote, hence the reading comprehension advisement.
Now as far as my sentence structure and a few typos because of my own laziness to proof read all my post and the fact that I am using my wife's laptop instead of my own PC, which is easier to use and less frustrating to type on..... I believe you could understand what I was saying. I understand it's hard not to be a wise guy on the internet from what I have read.
There is a transitional point when a confrontation goes physical. The question is what justifies that that transition? There mere point that by being followed by an individual made you feel threatened? I don't think that qualifies.For a more critical mind like Chen's, let me say that I know it doesn't qualify. If that isn't enough, let's just say I would not use it as justification.
The use of "deadly force" can take many forms and does not have to end in death but have the likely potential that it could end that way. It is more a function of what would "stop the threat". To be clear on that if shooting someone to stop a threat was what was required (or hitting him in the head with a bat) and the aggressor wasn't killed you were still using what would be referred to as "deadly force". If you weren't defending yourself and you smashed someone in the head there would be a good chance you might be brought up on attempted murder charges.
Maybe they will get to a point in this trial where it is explained just when Trayvon Martin was justified in doing what he did to Zimmerman. I don't think that will happen because I don't believe he was justified.That is what the trial is about for me. That transitional point. Difficult to prove when it doesn't seem Martin's best option was taken from him. The simple option ...... He could have run!
For us here it would be situational awareness and avoidance.
I'll have the popcorn ready for next week.
So Chen no ill will here but know I never attack anyone, I just react.
I took my time. Don't cry for me, it's just tough to type with this brace on my arm after surgery. :dirol:

Just for clarification, my wise a remark came from your "it's a simple question. Stick with it" remark. Also, I never said you need training, the "IF" was extremely important in my post. If you're thirsty, you need a drink...Is not telling you you need a drink if your not thirsty, see?

Nevertheless, my first response to you completely agrees with this post you just wrote. No, Martin had no justification to punch Zimmerman. If Martin could legally carry, he would have had no justification to pull a firearm either.

So seeing as after a few posts, our understanding is the same relating back to reply #1, I did indeed understand your question.

Speedy healing.

You are so right! You touch on something I have thought about for a long time. It pertains to that "code" you reference.
I am not a shrink but I guess I can play one here. The obscene violence that school kids exact on each other along with kids really going off the deep end. You know, the quiet kid that ends up killing another kid or who goes on a schoolmate massacre. There are many reasons that I won't list here but could one of them be?????
Zero tolerance! Little Johnny can not exhibit any aggression even if he was the victim and just fighting back. There is no outlet for them. They don't know what it is to settle a problem with the
"duke it out" therapy of the good old days. You know back when we believed there was such a thing as "fighting dirty" and it was not accepted. (please do not confuse my comment with hardcore street survival!) So no kid learns what it is like to get hit. He has no empathy for the other guy so it's ok to beat someone into oblivion. I can go on to explain more clearly but I hate typing. I just know you and others, especially the 55 and over crowd know what I mean. Please comment. I know you will be more eloquent.

In reply to all the mutual combat posts, I think it is still functional albeit a narrower avenue. One example is an mma gym.

When I started college I trained with mma fighters at the university gym. While I never officially joined his mma gym, we sparred frequently. 99% of those people at the mma gym, male and female, ages 13 and up, had exactly the experience you are talking about. The level of respect towards others was night and day compared to the "girly men" of today. The avenue is there for our society, it's just to physically hard, and we've become so obese as a society.

7 years ago we held a fight night at our co-op house. It was a dry house, not affiliated with the university so we had whatever weapons we wanted in it rooms...and there were plenty. It was in this house I met the mma fighters. Well we set up mats and tiki torches in our side yard, and proceeded with the fights being judged by a professional mma fighter/ref. A police officer rolls up and asks for the president of the house, asks him if we were drinking, and if this was voluntary. No we weren't drinking and it was all voluntary (mutual). Police officer told us to be safe and let all the other officers know what was going on, and we were left alone the rest of the night.

 

[Kramer1113]

Link Removed

I posted this re-enactment video back on page 4 of this thread. HOWEVER, it did not occure to me Mr. Zimmerman did not have a Lawyer at this time... Oh My Goodness.
>>>>>--------> Original Page 4 posts http://www.usacarry.com/forums/deadly-force-law/37349-trial-george-zimmerman-4.html

 

[BC1]

I posted this re-enactment video back on page 4 of this thread. HOWEVER, it did not occure to me Mr. Zimmerman did not have a Lawyer at this time... Oh My Goodness.
>>>>>--------> Original Page 4 posts http://www.usacarry.com/forums/deadly-force-law/37349-trial-george-zimmerman-4.html

Yeah, I winced when I saw he made the video the next day. It's not long enough. Take a couple days, talk to an attorney and give a voluntary statement that doesn't go against your penal interest. And don't go on Hannity. And don't apologize to the parents. And don't call the prosecutor to explain. And don't get caught on a jailhouse phone. Ben Franklin once said "it's the innocent who need an attorney, let the guilty lie for themselves."

 

[ezkl2230]

So the prosecution's star witness has actually done more to wreck their case than to bolster it. The talking heads are quick to try to pin the problem not on her performance and trustworthiness as a witness, but on the assumption that "the reason white people don’t understand Rachel Jeantel has something more to do with white privilege than what they could call Jeantel’s capricious nature...," (Christina Coleman in a Global Grind article).

Translation, privileged white folk just can't understand "...the difference between edgy culture [of the witness - added] and outright dysfunction,” Eric Deggans in the Tampa Bay Times. Supporters of the prosecution are trying to pave the way for a mistrial in case the jury, five white women and one Hispanic woman who are obviously in no position to truly understand this young woman and put her own hate speech, rude behavior, and inability to communicate clearly aside, find Zimmerman anything less than guilty. If you believe these writers, only a black jury is truly qualified to sit on the jury for this trial.

Link Removed

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Damn! Isn't this thing over yet?! Just give George his gun back and put this whole debacle to bed already!


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[SR40c]

This trial was a train wreck from the beginning. It's what happens when the evidence from the initial investigation is ignored and charges are brought up anyway just to appease the race baiting left and their ignorant masses.

 

[Kramer1113]

A few decades ago two men punching each other in the nose acceptable if the altercation was mutual. (mutual combat) then somewhere that wasn't good enough and you had to literally knock their brains out to make your point.

We used to have a code and if you did something wrong I could punch you in the nose. You then had an option, punch me back or apologize for your insulting action.

Now there is no more code, laws are no longer obeyed by officials, morals are all based on preferred method of orgasm, women are no longer revered as potential mothers but receptacles for randy boys, teen sex now includes 10 year old kids, and we have become a litigious society. If you are involved in a fight today, You are sued, the owner of your car is sued, the person that owned the property you fought on is sued. Someone, anyone that came in contact with you in the past year is sued by lawyers with bills to pay and payroll to meet.

Then came the violence is never acceptable crowd. What a crock of crap. Sometimes violence is the only answer.

Anyway, to answer your question: When a jury says so. Who is involved with that? More lawyers.

I believe it was my father a long long time ago who basically set down the rules for us kids. If you get in a fight and the other boy quits or runs away, its the end of the fight. If he was down on the ground you don't kick him.
We had an 18 year old girl where I work go out to the "Mud Pits" where the kids go mudding in their trucks. They were drinking and she took a radio out of some guys truck. When he approached her another boy hit him in the head knocking him to the ground. She then picks up a Cinderblock and smashes his head. She is in prison now. 18 year old girl and in prison for murder over a radio that she took.
No one taught her the guidelines.
I hate to say it, and I never thought it could be true, but there may be a link between video game violence and real life actions. Kids don't seem to make the connection between reality and fiction/video games.
I think we were smarter than that "Back In The Day".

 

[Kramer1113]

Damn! Isn't this thing over yet?! Just give George his gun back and put this whole debacle to bed already!


Sent from behind enemy lines.

What do you think Mr. Zimmerman will do with that gun when he gets it back?

Re-Holster it
Sell It as a historical item
Just Put it away

 

[gejoslin]

What do you think Mr. Zimmerman will do with that gun when he gets it back?

Re-Holster it
Sell It as a historical item
Just Put it away

~
Thats my thought anyway. He's gonna need a lot of money to get his life back to some semblance of normalcy.