Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "The George Zimmerman Trial Has Gone Freaking Insane" video.

  1. You know better than your whole facetious scenario. You know that's unrelated to what happened. Why do you try to pull such bullshit? Being afraid you might die when having your head smashed against the ground is entirely reasonable.
    1
  2. It's quite difficult to get DNA off anything, and if Z's skin was not broken by a punch until after M tried to cover his nose there wouldn't be any DNA. Witnesses saw M on top of Z. Case closed.
    1
  3. He had been in trouble at school three times in the weeks prior. This was a suspicious teenager.
    1
  4. John Iadarola: No, it goes, "if you can prove she's a racist" then she has secret motive to lie. It's called impeachinging the witness. Catch them in a lie, they are shown to be a liar, and their testimony is invalid.
    1
  5. When you're wearing street clothes, as do detectives, you carry a gun to meet the greatest possible threat. So did Zimmerman. If you don't have a full-scale accessory belt you do not carry pepper spray, cuffs, baton, taser, etc. He had enough to carry with a radio or phone and a gun.
    1
  6. Unworthy question. Irrelevant. Serious fights? Three.
    1
  7. Street clothes is a common term versus uniform. Look it up. If someone has a gun, pepper spray would just be dangerous to an innocent community servant like Zimmerman. Death at the hands of an assailant criminal would be unreasonable and unbearable. You're reaching desperately.
    1
  8. Except he didn't know what "in case" might be.Not wanting them to get away is motive to follow and report when police got there, not "assault and kill", that would make him the criminal. Martin attacked Zimmerman because he didn't like someone following him while he was casing apartments, it would cramp his style and not permit him to try doors and windows. Why else would he attack Z AFTER Z had lost track of M and went back to his car? He didn't want some whitey ratting on him.
    1
  9. If someone was attacked and they were having their head pounded on the ground then they have a cause of self-defense, patently. They are NOT required to wait and see if they pass out and wind up dead before responding with deadly force. The decision as to whether Zimmerman's life was in danger CANNOT be left to Martin to decide!!
    1
  10. Martin's crime, if any, is irrelevant. The decision by Zimmerman to defend his life is the case at hand. However unfair it might seem that Martin didn't have a day in court, the self-defense law says it couldn't be helped. In effect, Martin's actions were responsible for his death. He killed himself. Following someone to see if they're committing property crime is NOT "provocation", and certainly not illegal.
    1
  11. You're confusing the right to use deadly force initially with whether one can continue to apply deadly or damaging force after the threat is dismissed. How this relates to Zimmerman I don't know, he clearly had the right of self-defense AND the right to apply initial deadly force against having his head slammed against the ground, and he didn't have to wait till he had a subdural hematoma and became unconscious to act.
    1
  12. That's why you've commented a hundred times, eh? You don't care. Batman is a comic book, he would have been shot dead in a minute and his batsuit would have had a big hole in it. Zimmerman was merely defending his neighbors, he wasn't a paranoid. Your deceptive mischaracterization of him is unwarranted. Wait till YOUR neighborhood turns to shit and you have people breaking into your homes repeatedly. A loaded gun is the best thing to carry for all possible threats.
    1
  13. When you click on "To reply back click here" in the email you receive, it automagically goes to the message it was sent from and opens a comment window, and not any other. It went to the one that was deleted. I never received another email with a similar message. You can't fool computers.
    1
  14. John Iadarola: You're obtuse and have no legal grasp of what you're talking about. You have a bunch of erroneous television notions of the law and what self-defense is and what is required to use deadly force. Most of what you claim is naively girlish and irrelevant to the case. This is why you don't get what other people are saying.
    1
  15. Nope, but he was said by the Medical Examiner to have been "athletic and muscular and in good health". All I was doing is comparing weight and build to my experience.
    1
  16. Looks like he did convince the jury. I told ya so.
    1
  17. If the kid had wanted his day in court for whatever crime, then he shouldn't have threatened someone's life so they'd have to shoot him. There is NO sure way to stop someone trying to kill you other than potentially killing him. That's WHY we have self-defense law, to protect people who are only defending their life. You don't even seem to realize that "unarmed teenagers" kill a lot of people!!
    1
  18. Looks like he did convince the jury. I told ya so.
    1
  19. You believe the victim, not the assailant! The presumption of the reasonable person test for self-defense is that if there was doubt one would survive or lose their good state of health that this alone is sufficient to use deadly force.
    1
  20. Nonsense. You don't cover your ass when you don't know what's going to happen. He called after he saw M acting suspiciously, wandering around and looking in windows. He knew the complex had had numerous break--ins and didn't want them to get away this time, so he followed, followed, not attacked, not confronted, just followed. Then when he had thought he lost M he went back to his car and that was where M attacked him for following him.
    1
  21. A person can be killed without a drop of blood being shed. Self-defense relies NOT on "real" danger, but on the perception of danger to oneself or one's state of health. You are NOT required to wait till someone IS killing you to repel them with deadly forced.
    1
  22. Making stupid criminal decisions as a teenager can get you killed because you have the weight and physical bearing of an adult.
    1
  23. Repelling someone attacking you is precisely the same cause of action. Bar fights don't end with gunshots merely because few people are allowed to carry them, and if you draw a gun legally the fight is over, unless the assailant is insane. But yes, if you become the victim in a bar fight and cannot escape being beaten, you can indeed defend yourself with a gun, beginning with the gun as a threat, and shooting the assailant if they ignore your warning to stop coming at you.
    1
  24. There's absolutely NO requirement that you either know the age of the threat or even give attention to that in defending yourself from it. In the case of a minor who is a threat it's not about the minor, it's about the potential victim. IF a minor acting as a threat survives, THEN you worry about juvenile court.
    1
  25. Well, you're simply wrong. Nobody has to accept punishment from some piece of crud like you who thinks everybody who doesn't like what you do to them must surely be a wussy. If you think there "ever was a time" then you've simply watched too much deceptive TV that doesn't represent reality. On TV people hit each other and then get back up and are magically good to go, that isn't the way it really happens.
    1
  26. If they kick you in the ankle and run away, sure, but not if they keep doing it. "Brandishing" a firearm is a totally different charge and patent self-defense is immune from it.
    1
  27. Ask DNA experts, you don't always find DNA despite documented contact. It's more complicated than you imagine. If M hit him toward the end of the fight, and didn't touch his nose again, but only slammed his head down, he easily might not have any blood on him. I have a bias against criminals. Normal people don't attack someone who is just following them at a distance. Normal people don't wander around looking at doors and windows.
    1
  28. You must be young. Street clothes is a VERY common term to my generation. Z's gun wasn't for that. It was for self-protection in case someone wants to kill a witness. Neighborhood Watch aren't expected to make arrests, they are supposed to keep the suspect in sight at distance and watch and report while waiting for police. He drove and tried to follow M but lost him and came back to his car where M attacked him from the dark. He had to defend himself.
    1
  29. Normal people don't have a pack at school with stolen lady's jewelry and a screwdriver in it. Etc.
    1
  30. The only test in the law he must meet is whether a reasonable person MIGHT do the same thing if they were in danger in exactly that situation, because we ALL want the right to defend our lives on a moment's notice and not be held to account for your "coulda-woulda-shoulda" bullshit!!
    1
  31. If someone assaults a police officer, does the officer have cause to draw his gun? Yes. Is an officer of the law magically different than any other person with a gun? No. Not under the law. Now, if the officer shoots without cause he can't claim self-defense, but if he attempts to effect an arrest and the person continues to fight and he has no other means, he can shoot him. Deadly force CAN be used to effect an arrest.
    1
  32. Go look up deadly force law on Google.
    1
  33. That doesn't indicate that, and even if they rolled around, so what? People don't "go down", they fall to their knees and splay out the feet at crazy angles, achieving the grass and water. So it isn't misinformation. I have no desperation, merely a desire to see an innocent man preserved.
    1
  34. And that's why Zimmerman is on trial, duh. But his burden is easily proved. Your bullshit is a deceptive pretense of misunderstanding of self-defense.
    1
  35. What the police said he "should" do doesn't matter. What Martin did to Zimmerman does and makes it self-defense. Only superficial injuries can result when a person fears for his life. When someone is trying to bang your head on the soft ground it can knock you near unconscious without leaving a laceration. No DNA might be found even if Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and didn't manage it before he was shot. No DNA is found under fingernails lest one claws another like a girl. Fists don't do it.
    1
  36. Is meaningless. Testimony by police revealed it wasn't illegal for him to follow Martin even if "advised" not to.
    1
  37. The fact that he believed this MIGHT happen to him is quite enough to justify him shooting Martin once, or more if Martin didn't stop, and people do NOT always stop when they are shot, as the police well know.
    1
  38. I don't know what you're looking at. Look up self-defense deadly force. You'll find it, I don't know Florida statutes. But I do know Illinois, Missouri and California, and they all read pretty much the same. In college I did work for Legal Aid in the law library, you can do your own homework.
    1
  39. Every major fight we ever got in the ER was life-threatening or nearly so. People don't even know they are being killed or maimed till the brain-swelling starts in. They don't realize their spleen or liver or kidney is leaking blood till they go into shock when they get to the ER and are found to need emergency surgery. They don't realize they can never feel their fingers on one hand again after they have been stabbed or had their arm broken.
    1
  40. As I said, noses don't bleed right away. Everybody knows that.
    1
  41. There you go, self-defense.
    1
  42. As the police testified, there was NO law against him "pursuing" Martin, even if the police suggested but did not order him not to. That's why that's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that Martin attacked Zimmerman. People want to portray Z as racist, but Z has black relatives and worked with black kids in his community service activities!
    1
  43. You've now become irrational.
    1
  44. IF you HAD reposted it as a reply to ME, I WOULD have received notification by email, as I have my account set that way, you did NOT repost it. You're dishonest about that TOO!
    1
  45. Whether the assailant is crippled or insane, or immature, doesn't matter, what self-defense does is recognize someone's right to preserve their right to life no matter the threat.
    1
  46. I have, they're not. The statute says "A person...". That's ANYBODY. What that section does is defend self-defense against any assailant OTHER THAN a law enforcement officer. In other words, anyone assaulting you can be met by deadly force, but NOT a sworn officer arresting you!!
    1
  47. He didn't run, he simply lost Z in the dark. Once he realized he was being followed and that it would cramp his criminality, he doubled back and laid in wait for Z. Makes sense if he is trying to attack Z. Martin had been caught that week with a backpack with a bunch of ladies jewelry and a screwdriver in it, and he said it wasn't his, a friend gave it to him, but he wouldn't name the "friend". He had been seen on camera in an unauthorized area of the school trying doors and accesses.
    1
  48. He was ALLOWED to have the gun BY LAW for that purpose. Whether he might have used another means and succeeded or failed is irrelevant. HOW a person defends against a threat to his own life IS NOT ours to question! That is what the self-defense law says.
    1
  49. Give it a try, look at more than one or two links. Don't you know how to research anything online? Or are you merely pretending to so you can keep arguing. Having your head smashed on the ground leads to the fear of succumbing to great personal harm or death. Unarmed is meaningless if they have you in that situation. I'm surprised the judge didn't drop the charges. I give it half a chance that the judge finally obviates the jury vote and gives a directed verdict of not guilty.
    1
  50. The fact that you're a little adolescent cretin obviously can't be corrected by simple information. I advise to to go argue elsewhere, with someone larger and angry. Maybe you'll discover the truth about the nature of fighting and injury.
    1
  51. The police didn't even technically have a right to order him not to, as he was engaged in defending the property of others. The "advised" him not to, but that was mere talk. The 911 operators are instructed to do that because they could be sued if their instructions lead to someone getting harmed.
    1
  52. When he attacks men he proves he's no "boy". Using the term "boy" on a black male is degrading anyway.
    1
  53. Makes no difference, he was neighborhood watch captain, AND he had a concealed carry permit, meaning he was trained in deadly force It's true, pepperspray is only effective at 3 10 feet. He had been attacked and discharged his weapon at point blank range, indicating he was in a struggle for his life. I agree with your assessment, but not everyone can get a carry permit. Knives are good if you know how to use them. The allegation that Z was a racist was chickenshit, he has BLACK RELATIVES!
    1
  54. Zimmerman acquitted. Told ya so. Now you have to decide whether to try to trash a jury you don't even know for being racist, or else learn from your error and realize that you don't have much legal sense. Keep reading about it the next few days, it will be instructive to you about how you let your emotions get the better of you and make you irrational.
    1
  55. You don't even get it. Those were examples of things people don't imagine are that dangerous, but are so. Read for comprehension, not for a good excuse to fire back with something stupid.
    1
  56. No one is required to use less-than-lethal measures to defend themselves. That the police do is merely because they have the equipment to carry all that with them. They do it strictly as a favor to those they have to assault. They aren't required to, and they take chances when they do.
    1
  57. You didn't repost or I would have gotten BOTH your original deleted and your amended version, I got the first, not the second. You lied. Computers don't have cause to lie.
    1
  58. So I imagine you want the police to stop shooting "kids" when they rob stores at gunpoint, because after all, "they're just kids", eh? You're a nitwit.
    1
  59. I guess you've never been in a fight or worked in an ER as I have, you'd know better. You have a delusional version of what a fight is and what result it has. You keep thinking that things like punches don't kill, WRONGO. You keep imagining that your cartoon understanding of fighting leaves the participants intact. Punches kill. Pounding someone's head on the ground kills. Strangling someone kills. Just sitting on someone's chest can kill. You're immature and you don't get it.
    1
  60. Sometimes. Gunshots don't always kill,. in fact they do so less often than a knife does. And yes, self-defense DOES give you the right to use deadly force, that is what it means. If someone hits you and keeps hitting you and you hit him with a brick till he stops, then only if you keep hitting him AFTER he stops is your claim of self-defense fraudulent. If he dies from hitting him to make him stop the law says, Oh Well, it's self-defense".
    1
  61. Young people like you are delusional idiots. Anyone who assaults another in my book should be taken out and killed by the community till we no longer have anyone who would even DARE do that. You haven't seen what it causes, and your understanding of real danger and suffering is completely immature, naive, and a totally uninformed cartoon version of reality. You need to spend time in an ambulance.
    1
  62. If all you have is a gun to defend your life, you are indeed permitted to shoot, just not to empty a clip in him if he is not continuing as a threat. In the case of Martin, it was a shot through the heart and he died immediately. If it had been non-fatal, then he would have been charged with attempted murder of Zimmerman.
    1
  63. All you have to do is copy your comment to clipboard, delete the first, and reply again and paste and correct. Then I would get both the original and the corrected. Wait and see what the jury says, it is going to surprise you.
    1
  64. M was seen on top of Z. Z said he was smacking his head on the ground. Z was seen to have minor abrasions on the back of his head. The first thing M did according to Z is cover his nose and mouth and said he was going to die. The banging his head on the ground and punching his nose came later. Noses don't bleed instantly. Etc. Adds up perfectly.
    1
  65. No I didn't, that's just your dishonest posturing. Evidence that he assaulted Zimmerman? That Zimmerman didn't assault HIM? You're an idiot. The person who assaults someone doesn't FIRST call the police!!
    1
  66. You're really not going to like the verdict, I've seen this stuff happen this way all my life, there will be a not-guilty verdict, and some bunch of racists will scream and cry and use it as an excuse to loot and damage things someplace. Zimmerman will move to Texas where he would be a hero.
    1
  67. People are NOT allowed to take you and break your ankle. IF they try to you CAN INDEED shoot them to stop them! Why don't you understand this? Yes, threats to your health ARE permitted as grounds for deadly force as self-defense. You need to study the law on this, you seem to be remarkably naive.
    1
  68. Just in case you're stupid and don't know the law, you should know that arrest can be effected legally by ANYONE, and a LEO has NO greater power to arrest than any citizen. And 158 pounds at his height is muscular, not skinny. That was my wrestling weight group when I was a senior in high school, I could run 6 miles a night and deadlift 375 and benchpress 250, and I wouldn't have wanted to take me on if I was much older as was Zimmerman. A gun would have been needed to stop me!
    1
  69. If you continue to beat him to death after he stops being a threat, it's manslaughter, but the standard is imprecise and errs on the side of the first-assaulted victim. Everybody knows that in the anger required to defend one may administer too many blows before it becomes obvious that the danger is ended, and the reasonable man test assumes that.
    1
  70. If you set about to commit violent crime, then you are responsible for any deaths that result. Martin was guilty of his own killing.
    1
  71. You wrote, and then dishonestly deleted: Who said anything about gunpoint? The only person who had a gun was Zimmerman!" A sizable teen poses every bit as much of a threat when he grabs you and slams your head on the ground as any adult. Martin was taller and more athletic than Zimmerman. It was self-defense that he shot him, and the jury will find that way.
    1
  72. You didn't inquire as to the outcome or what happened. I was alive because I won, and my cause for fighting was just so they were arrested, I wasn't. But in one case they had their collar bone broken, and in another their eye needed surgery. In both cases the damage done to them was their fault under the law. The winner usually survives without serious injury, not so often the loser. Your grasp of medical danger is that of a fantasy-ridden child. Too much television.
    1
  73. No, it's not either a case of statistical self-selection. Fights that are stopped result in injury too, just not as bad or as often. The rule of law in a civilized country protects everyone from having to endure a beating at the hands of another. Ride with cops sometime and you'll find out how bad it can get and how fast. Fights without weapons that continue for long result in maiming the loser most often, and endangering his life and health, and requiring medical intervention.
    1
  74. Then you're merely ignorant, obtuse, and obstinate. Ask other people, you seem to have a blind spot in your experience. He had to defend himself, and he had to do so with his gun.
    1
  75. Your notions of alternatives to self-defense are reaching, no one is required to do such complex mental gyrations when their life is in danger.
    1
  76. I needed no "assumptions", that's just your dishonest posturing. Nothing else makes any sense. Zimmerman didn't first call the police, THEN assault him! Zimmerman didn't come up to him and fire his gun point blank into him, or what is all the other witness testimony to the contrary for? Zimmerman didn't shoot him and then beat his own head into the ground. As I said before, you're an idiot.
    1
  77. If he was fighting against having his head bashed on the somewhat soft ground there may be no blood, but he would know his life was in danger nonetheless because he undoubtedly worried he couldn't keep resisting having his head bashed for long. You can kill someone that way without even breaking the scalp. I'm motivated by reason and the witnesses and the evidence. It points to self-defense. GZ didn't call police to come arrest him, Z, for shooting M in cold blood. That's not how the mind works
    1
  78. Martin's behavior was suspect because he was wandering around looking at apartment windows, Z followed M. M reacted by assaulting Z. Do you assault anyone who follows you? THAT is the crime that got him killed.
    1
  79. Juvenile court isn't relevant to this case at all. Whether a juvenile is tried as an adult or not is irrelevant if they are dead. Zimmerman was NOT administering court adjudicated punishment, he was defending himself. When you defend yourself, you are ONLY required to be in fear for your life or health, it doesn't matter whether it's an adult, or a child, or a dog.
    1
  80. Nope, Z didn't try to detain anybody, he followed M so he could watch him for the police and then lost him. M didn't like being spied on, so when he returned to his car M attacked, and that IS where M's body was found, near Z's car. People don't read the future, nobody calls in the heat of an incident to "put something on record", because they don't know what's GOING to happen. Z had no idea he was going to confront a suspicious person, he was just going to the store. He wasn't "on duty".
    1
  81. Justifiable homicide.
    1
  82. What I received by email was deleted when I went to reply to it. That's dishonest.
    1