Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
100. I have no argument. The instructions to the jury will be --
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 05:33 PM
Jul 2013

FL 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE

State: Florida



Florida Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases

FL 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE



[NOTE: This instruction is currently under review by the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases because of recent legislation or case law: See Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010)]



Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.

Read in all cases.

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of non-deadly force.

Definition.

“Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

In defense of person. § 776.012, Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.

(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) if the following two facts are proved:

1. (Defendant) must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend [himself] [herself] [another] against (victim’s) imminent use of unlawful force against the [defendant] [another person].

2. The use of unlawful force by (victim) must have appeared to (defendant) to be ready to take place.

In defense of property. § 776.031, Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.

(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) if the following three facts are proved:

1. (Victim) must have been trespassing or otherwise wrongfully interfering with land or personal property.

2. The land or personal property must have lawfully been in (defendant’s) possession, or in the possession of a member of [his] [her] immediate family or household, or in the possession of some person whose property [he] [she] was under a legal duty to protect.

3. (Defendant) must have reasonably believed that [his] [her] use of force was necessary to prevent or terminate (victim’s) wrongful behavior.

No duty to retreat (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable.

If the defendant is in [his] [her] [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] [he] [she] is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) has [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [has removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

No duty to retreat (location other than dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity.

There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Definitions.

As used with regard to self defense,

“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

Give in all cases.

A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where [he] [she] has a right to be.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.

The use of non-deadly force is not justified if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a (applicable forcible felony).

Define applicable forcible felony.

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using non-deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.

A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

Give the following instruction if applicable.

However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] [another], but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.

Read in all cases.

In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.

If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

Read in all cases.

If, in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of non-deadly force, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That sounds pretty damaging to Zimmerman's case. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #1
Legal analysts were "mostly unimpressed" with the medical examiner (Orlando Sentinel) Hooray for Pepe Jul 2013 #188
Sounds like he's getting his head slammed now Politicalboi Jul 2013 #2
The cross examination of the medical examiner by Maron is ridiculous. madaboutharry Jul 2013 #3
I agree she's a good witness kudzu22 Jul 2013 #4
Not quite DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #5
A mugger slammed my head against a wall. Once. aquart Jul 2013 #28
But here, it was Zimmerman who had a gun, knew he had it and JDPriestly Jul 2013 #84
I very much get your point, Benton D Struckcheon Jul 2013 #118
-And- in addition to that, PotatoChip Jul 2013 #141
Agree. For me it is first degree murder. He stalked with intent. aquart Jul 2013 #222
Great bodily harm =/= "insignificant" demwing Jul 2013 #6
My point is that it doesn't rest on what Zimmy is thinking DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #7
Maybe, but I was responding to kudzu22 demwing Jul 2013 #13
don't you have another "the sky is falling" thread to post? CatWoman Jul 2013 #8
Doesn't matter. He or she is wrong about the law. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #10
. NoGOPZone Jul 2013 #17
Not this case. The Defense has to PROVE that Zimmerman's life was in imminent danger. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #11
No they don't. Crepuscular Jul 2013 #18
That's true. I worded it incorrectly but that's what I meant. Thanks!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #21
Your use of capital letters doesn't change Florida law onenote Jul 2013 #20
Well, looks like the Medical Examiner is putting holes in that claim, much to your dismay. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #22
My dismay? I want Zimmerman convicted. I just thought that knowing the law would be useful. onenote Jul 2013 #77
an aside... what does "much to your dismay" add to the value of your post? Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #88
The Zimmerman worshippers have no credibility. How's that for explicit? Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #162
ok, bear with me, it's for a good cause. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #172
There'll be another medical "expert" customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #147
This Medical Expert was quite compelling. She didn't waiver. She was very convincing. Very! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #163
Don't underestimate GZ's lawyer customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #177
I'm sure that will be the case, definitely, but nevertheless, she has been the best witness thus far Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #178
True customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #179
No. The prosecution gets the last word in closing JimDandy Jul 2013 #192
If so customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #197
How Does a Jury Decide the Issue of Self-Defense in Florida? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #31
Where Defendant has presented any evidence of self defense treestar Jul 2013 #62
He doesn't have to testify DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #66
can he be forced to testify? Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #90
The jury is not supposed to draw any inferences stranger81 Jul 2013 #122
I presume the secret assumption then is that the person is guilty? Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #134
That he's guilty, is hiding something, or any number of other negative assumptions. stranger81 Jul 2013 #168
thanks very much Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #174
Those statements that he made were hearsay, admissible but hearsay. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #101
True but then somehow he has to get in some evidence treestar Jul 2013 #136
a reasonable person would have stayed in the car. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #83
The Bottom Line for me. That has always been the bottom line, but that seems to be neglected Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #164
What would a reasonable person in Zimmerman's position have done? JDPriestly Jul 2013 #97
I don't think if he had his gun in his hand that Trayvon would have punched him.. more likely Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #108
Did Trayvon play football? He might have tried to rush Zimmerman and JDPriestly Jul 2013 #129
I agree with you Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #133
And the victim unarmed? JDPriestly Jul 2013 #135
i think they will noiretextatique Jul 2013 #153
If there is one smart and strong woman on that jury Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #159
Scares the shit out of me as a black woman who has a young brother, cousins, uncles, Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #165
they also have to show that Martin demwing Jul 2013 #56
yes it can. Vattel Jul 2013 #67
Aggressor =/= Initiator demwing Jul 2013 #126
I guess I misunderstood you Vattel Jul 2013 #183
The defense doesn't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt demwing Jul 2013 #196
The defense doesn't need to establish self-defense even by a preponderance of the evidence. Vattel Jul 2013 #206
Defense doesn't ever have to prove anything. WinkyDink Jul 2013 #59
Thank you. onenote Jul 2013 #79
In affirmative defenses, it does demwing Jul 2013 #103
not in florida Vattel Jul 2013 #207
More than "some" evidence, Self Defense must be shown demwing Jul 2013 #209
The burden of proof for insanity is one thing. Vattel Jul 2013 #210
"But that is not the same as proving" - Yes, you're correct demwing Jul 2013 #211
I think the defense's burden in introducing prima facie evidence Vattel Jul 2013 #212
The long and short is that self defense demwing Jul 2013 #214
You are definitely right about that. Vattel Jul 2013 #215
Just so we're all clear demwing Jul 2013 #216
Just so we're all clear Vattel Jul 2013 #218
"once the defense meets its burden of production (which it clearly can meet in the Zimmerman case)" demwing Jul 2013 #219
I think any reasonable person who knows the law and the facts of the case Vattel Jul 2013 #220
The point is he lied. Nine Jul 2013 #12
That is the point. Zimmerman lied. yardwork Jul 2013 #16
Not material. A person can suffer absolutely no injuries whatsoever and still claim self-defense. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #25
So it's irrelevant that Zimmerman lied about key facts in the incident? Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #29
On which point? Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #32
If his head was being pounded into a concrete sidewalk he would have needed medical treatment. Dawgs Jul 2013 #35
How is that an absolute certainty? Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #38
Legally, you are right. But jurors can get upset with a defendant if he is lying. truedelphi Jul 2013 #54
Declining medical care for observable injuries is not the same as lying about how Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #60
I am not saying that it is the same. But Zimmerman is in the truedelphi Jul 2013 #74
I doubt the bang-count will be a factor. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #82
So, let me get this right: Zimmerman planned to claim self defense. He planned to claim that Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #167
then why LIE about the severity of the injury? noiretextatique Jul 2013 #155
The latter is a key part of the Defendant's version of the former. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #37
And yet, he did sustain injuries. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #44
Non life threatening injuries. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #47
But the contention is -- Martin was on top. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #53
A 5-7, 185 pound guy with MMA training would be at a severe disadvantage in a hand fight? Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #57
Being on the bottom and being pummeled, seems to be his contention. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #64
"Numerous injuries" amounts to a bloody nose and two small cuts on his head. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #91
The quantity and severity of injuries is immaterial. I don't know why you keep going back to that. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #107
At most, John Good's testimony corrobrates only a small part of Zimmerman's account. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #111
The ME-who-examines-live-people testified that the injuries were superficial. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #116
So any injury, no matter how superficial, could create a reasonable fear of life threatening injury? Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #140
It's not the injury, it's the means by which the injury is being inflicted. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #142
And if his head wasn't actually being repeatedly bashed into concrete.... Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #144
That is a hypothetical that seems to run against current testimony and evidence. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #146
When the defense attorney made that statement, I thought the testifying ME almost gasped. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #121
Severity of injuries is not a factor in a self-defense claim. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #125
The credibility of the person making the claim sure as hell is. Nine Jul 2013 #199
Zimmerman maintains he was on his back being straddled by Martin who Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #203
"and/or"? Nine Jul 2013 #205
It depends completely on the jury, and it is hard to get even six JDPriestly Jul 2013 #119
then why did he lie about what happened? frylock Jul 2013 #34
What supposed lie are you referring to? Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #41
that martin bashed GZ's head 20 times against the sidewalk.. frylock Jul 2013 #45
Zimmerman did sustain multiple injuries, as recorded the night of the incident. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #48
20 times, 1-2 times. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #49
Zero times would have sufficed to qualify for self defense if he had a reasonable fear. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #58
someone with reasonable fear would've never started the encounter frylock Jul 2013 #70
A non-sensical statement. You're imposing the conditions of the fight on Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #120
Are you saying any injury sustained in any altercation can create reasonable fear of imminent death? Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #72
that's how i'm reading it frylock Jul 2013 #128
Let me handle this one brush Jul 2013 #63
Nonsense. Nowhere is it in the laws of physics that concussion HAS to happen. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #68
Ahhh . . . do you live in the real world? brush Jul 2013 #80
Yes I do and you're BS'ing. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #89
Pls use your head brush Jul 2013 #105
No one but the most pro-Zimmerman bias would believe that, either. It's insane!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #170
I'm not saying self-inflicted brush Jul 2013 #193
yes, as a matter of fact i am.. frylock Jul 2013 #69
Severity of injury is not required for a claim of self-defense Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #76
so a hit upside the head with an iron pipe is no different than a slap across the cheek.. frylock Jul 2013 #93
I have no argument. The instructions to the jury will be -- Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #100
Wrong statute, buddy. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #106
Fair enough. Here -- Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #112
I'm getting to the point believing that Nuclear_Unicorn LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #81
i don't think that at all. i this poster knows exactly what their doing.. frylock Jul 2013 #132
perhaps he's noiretextatique Jul 2013 #156
Bias often clouds sound reason and judgment. You know, like Zimmerman that night. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #171
Many of us have also brush Jul 2013 #191
The count of 1 is a fabrication on your part and has no basis in supporting testimony or evidence. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #202
I am. Raine1967 Jul 2013 #182
Show me RGR375 Jul 2013 #184
Yep, gun nuts will claim all kind of crud when they shoot an unarmed kid for no reason. Hoyt Jul 2013 #42
Yeah, like all those women faking sexual assault. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #46
And the award for the worst analogy ever goes to Just Saying Jul 2013 #114
If all gun owners are, per Hoyt's assertion, simply looking for reasons to arbitrarily kill people Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #124
Sorry, but that is not same thing, not even close. Hoyt Jul 2013 #151
And when have you ever even entertained the idea there was a difference? Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #152
We are talking about rape here, unless that is your new defense of Zimmerman. Hoyt Jul 2013 #158
Being caught in a big lie hurts his credibility yardwork Jul 2013 #78
I'm going to guess what the jury is asked to decide is Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #94
I can't imagine what's more important to the decision Just Saying Jul 2013 #154
Someone having their head hit only twice (not that you hvae any evidence to support that) Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #200
The jurors WILL be instructed JimDandy Jul 2013 #194
"Jurists" are judges. Perhaps you meant "jurors." Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2013 #201
Indeed...jurors. n/t JimDandy Jul 2013 #204
Give an example for your supposition. lumpy Jul 2013 #85
What is reasonable to some, is unreasonable to others. Rex Jul 2013 #50
Reasonably? rdharma Jul 2013 #61
Questions (because this is what I find weak about Zimmerman's case): JDPriestly Jul 2013 #73
I think Zimmerman killed Martin unjustifiably. NM_Birder Jul 2013 #9
I'm not sure the prosecution wants to win this case. notadmblnd Jul 2013 #40
OFFS. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #43
It is all about laying the groundwork. LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #92
Perhaps Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he thought of losing the gun. lumpy Jul 2013 #131
they sure have boogered it up so far. NM_Birder Jul 2013 #139
I agree. There was no justification instigating the provocation. LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #86
Zimmerman is so cunning zeeland Jul 2013 #14
I think it was either gun recoil or TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #149
+1000 zeeland Jul 2013 #190
The minor injuries probaby happened while Trayvon was trying to break free from Zimmerman. BklnDem75 Jul 2013 #15
BS. DUers have been telling me for weeks it's a fact that Zimmerman's head was slammed repeatedly. Dawgs Jul 2013 #19
Right because whatever Zimmerman says must be true. Who would ever believe a young, black Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #23
Apparently a large number of DU'ers would never believe such a "punk" Scootaloo Jul 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author JimDandy Jul 2013 #195
Also, getting your head pounded into concrete is life threatening enough to kill, but not... Dawgs Jul 2013 #36
He didn't get medical attention because... LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #95
Evidently some of the police believed Zimmerman. After all they were not lumpy Jul 2013 #143
It's collusion. That's what it is. The Blue Wall of Silence is protecting Zimmerman. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #173
Ya they also ignore facts, just like Foxnews does. Rex Jul 2013 #51
Not so fast brush Jul 2013 #65
Considering that he did not need any assistance after the incident with mobilization LiberalFighter Jul 2013 #98
Agree. Dawgs Jul 2013 #208
Why would anyone believe anything Zimmerman Ilsa Jul 2013 #24
Zimmerman himself REFUSED to go to the Hospital after the shooting JI7 Jul 2013 #26
I wonder if they will call the mortician, who IIRC said that there was no evidence MADem Jul 2013 #27
That's the testimony that I'm waiting on. If Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the nose Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #176
It wouldn't wash gashes and lesions away, either. MADem Jul 2013 #187
I said that last night. notadmblnd Jul 2013 #33
That's two doctors now Nevernose Jul 2013 #52
Of course he lied. Apophis Jul 2013 #39
Hitting my head on a tree limb HockeyMom Jul 2013 #55
How could a single strike on a tree limb brush Jul 2013 #71
Look at the law RGR375 Jul 2013 #96
Except if it wasn't the concrete sidewalk causing the fear of life threatening injuries.... Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #102
Force meeting force HockeyMom Jul 2013 #148
But you have to believe zimmerman's brush Jul 2013 #104
The key words being "reasonably believed" demwing Jul 2013 #110
Why joule we believe him, though? Nevernose Jul 2013 #157
And then the defense will call a doctor who says they are significant davidn3600 Jul 2013 #75
I think the Physician Assistant that actually saw him has testified and wasn't impressed Hoyt Jul 2013 #180
Hah, I'm pretty sure libodem Jul 2013 #87
This is why imho he is going to rot in jail. Rex Jul 2013 #99
No they are not RGR375 Jul 2013 #109
Yes they are. Rex Jul 2013 #113
Sorry! RGR375 Jul 2013 #169
I Will Agree With You About What People Are Saying... ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #117
You have to admit libodem Jul 2013 #127
True libodem Jul 2013 #137
you have a way with words Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #130
correction: "you got me" noiretextatique Jul 2013 #161
Probably the a$$whole slipped on the wet grass and hit his head on the concrete. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #115
That should be the finishing touches on any reasonable doubt. He is a liar and a murderer. stevenleser Jul 2013 #123
I broken nose is 'insignificant, not life threatening' krawhitham Jul 2013 #138
Especially since it wasn't broken Nevernose Jul 2013 #150
don't confused people with facts noiretextatique Jul 2013 #160
Gee I said this months ago nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #145
Of course, he lied MrScorpio Jul 2013 #166
It's So Very Sad, Regardless Of Whether He Lied Or Not ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #175
We disagree on the facts RGR375 Jul 2013 #181
Then Perhaps, Perhaps... ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #186
That's terrible, so sad, so unexpected... truebluegreen Jul 2013 #185
Not sure he even have to be injured at all NM_Birder Jul 2013 #189
I'd say he inflicted any damage himself davidpdx Jul 2013 #198
They didn't look insignificant in the pictures that I saw. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #213
They certainly didn't look as if they necessitated shooting anyone demwing Jul 2013 #217
I disagree that any of us know with certainty... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #221
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Zimmerman's injuries were...»Reply #100