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.
How about if Martin hadn't started banging Zimmerman's head into the ground?
Zimmerman could have been a pizza delivery guy who couldn't figure out which building was which when looking to make his delivery. He just happens to be heading the same direction as Martin while looking for building numbers or condo numbers. Martin thinks he's being followed. The pizza guy then sees Martin and wonders if he can tell him where building 4 is. He gets out of the truck and goes around the corner to ask and gets punched in the face before being taken down for some ground and pound.
Sorry, but you don't get a free pass to start beating on someone because you think they are following you and get out of their vehicle.
If Martin initiated an attack on Zimmerman, it was Martin who should have kept his ass from attacking another person.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, but there is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
The verdict was correct.
Do you still believe this story? Really? There aren't many who still do. Even George's own attorneys had to downgrade their claims in open court, admitting that their client had "exaggerated a bit" (softball defense speak for lied).
Now, I'm going to ask you, because in 50 years of medical practice I've never seen this miracle, and I think it should be written up in the medical history books. How was Trayvon Martin able to pound Zimmerman's face repeatedly without leaving obvious bruising over bony prominences? Was he hitting Zimmerman with cotton balls or a wet noodle? Is it some kind of new blow that doesn't even leave red spots immediately after the event, let alone obvious bruising?
How was he able to grab Zimmerman's wet, bald head forcibly enough to move it against Zimmerman's will and slam it around without also leaving finger grip marks or bruising where he grabbed and held?
How was he able to obstruct Zimmerman's airway with forcible downward pressure, with Zimmerman struggling underneath that downward pressure to get free and call for help, and not cause any laceration of Zimmerman's gums or lips from their being squashed against his teeth? How come there was no swelling or bruising of this area from even blunt tissue damage, assuming he managed it all without causing any shear or pressure lacerations?
You claim to offer facts, but at least one thing you write above is definitely not a fact. George Zimmerman is not Jewish. He's Christian (Catholic). As for George's alleged "tutoring" of black children, no person has come forward to date to claim George tutored them or one of their kids. It appears the only basis for the claim George tutored anybody comes from when he was forced by his mother to help with kids living with them and also when forced to do some community service as part of a diversion program.
Zimmerman is a Jewish name. On your latter point, lack of proof isn't evidence of fact. You are simply repeating what's convenient.
But this is a good way to actually distract from the point of my response. There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman was racist and that he shot TM because he was Black. If anything, his background would say that he isn't. Yet, of course, these facts are inconvenient so we get all this FUD and conspiracy theory.
.....
..Had the prosecutor done a better job preparing the ME to testify and/or brought in other medical expert witnesses, given the cultural and language difficulties with the ME, the case would have been won for the prosecution on the medical evidence alone. It totally undermined many of George's claims.
Why should anyone respond to conspiracy theory? It's completely irrelevant. Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and the Obama Administration has cleared him of any hate crime.
Martin has a single scratch on the ring finger of his non-dominant hand. That's the only wound other than the fatal gunshot wound.
Zimmerman had minor, superficial wounds that indicated he'd been in a tussle but that were inconsistent in both extent and type for the dramatic story he told. Had the prosecutor done a better job preparing the ME to testify and/or brought in other medical expert witnesses, given the cultural and language difficulties with the ME, the case would have been won for the prosecution on the medical evidence alone. It totally undermined many of George's claims.
Bao's ineffectiveness went beyond language/cultural difficulties and preparation.
The state brought in another medical 'expert' witness, ME Valerie Rao. The state lost anyway.
You ignore the defense's main witness, Di Maio, who imo was far more convincing than Rao or Bao.
Since there was an eyewitness saying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him "ground and pound style" and the forensics support the positions of Zimmerman and Martin when the shot was fired, we know they were in a physical altercation. That is evidence.
We know that, besides from the gunshot, the only offensive wounds were on Martin and the only defensive wounds were on Zimmerman. That is evidence.
Does this evidence conclusively tell us exactly what happened? No.
Does this evidence contradict Zimmerman's story? No.
Is this evidence consistent with Zimmerman's story? Yes.
The jury, who heard and saw all of the evidence and testimony, felt that Zimmerman was not guilty.
For me, this evidence indicates that Zimmerman should not have been found guilty as well.
People who feel that a 204 pound man will always be able to handle a 153 pound man, because one person weighs more, might not come to the same conclusion.
BBM. What forensics are you claiming supports the positions of Zimmerman and Martin when the shot was fired? Furthermore, what forensics would rule out any other possible position than Martin on top and Zimmerman on the bottom?
Your second claim has already been covered. There were no "offensive" wounds on Martin. In fact, there was only a scratch, and that scratch, if sustained in the fight at all, could have just as easily been from a defensive action, an action that was neither offense or defense, and/or movement of the body while undergoing terminal posturing or postmortem. Zimmerman's own wounds could have been while engaging in actions that were offensive or defensive. So, you seem to want to put your own narrative onto the medical evidence and claim the physical evidence proves your narrative is correct when it doesn't.
I agree with you that the evidence doesn't tell us conclusively what DID happen. It can, however, tell us quite a few things about what didn't happen. In fact, quite a bit of the physical evidence definitely ISN'T consistent with the story Zimmerman told the police.
No matter what the weights of these two combatants or your personal assessment of who could or should be able to handle whom, Zimmerman lied about what took place between them. One has to question why he did so. One possible reason is because he has an overactive threat perception and fear reaction, so he perceives things and dramatizes them out of proportion to reality. Another possible reason is that he deliberately exaggerated the conflict because he needed to justify his use of lethal force.
Zimmerman is a Jewish name. On your latter point, lack of proof isn't evidence of fact. You are simply repeating what's convenient.
Having a 'Jewish' name doesn't make a person Jewish, and FYI, the name isn't even a "Jewish" name. It's a Bavarian German occupational surname, the surname given Germans who were carpenters or woodworkers. George's father is of German ancestry, and I bet you can guess what occupation some of them were. That's where the name comes from. Furthermore, unless a person converts to Judaism, they're Jewish by descent through the mother. George's own mother, Gladys, is a Peruvian Catholic, and therefore George cannot be Jewish by descent. Seriously, you can always ask him or his brother sometime what religion he is if you don't believe me. He's Catholic.
I wouldn't have brought it up, but you were claiming it in a list of so-called "facts." You were simply repeating what you believed, not what was factually correct. If you're going to state something as a fact, at least make sure it really is one.
Ogre's cherry-picking accusations are adorable. Woefully misplaced, but still adorable.
I can't even think of responding in detail unless you tell me which of my posts you're talking about. All I can say to the vague reference you make here is that I'd be interested if you would specify the post(s), and then can the "adorable" sarcasm and offer some serious analysis of where you think I've got it wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellflower
As has been stated repeatedly, just because a person finds dear Mr. Zimmerman guilty as the day is long, does not mean said person has failed to examine the totality of evidence. To the contrary, that person (or several persons, with respect to this thread) has weighed the evidence, read the discovery and all but memorized every syllable of every recorded lie from the mouth and pen of the killer and concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the armed parking monitor of the Retreat at Twin Lakes initiated, prolonged, unlawfully terminated and then completely rewrote the events of 2/26/2012. Ogre doesn't have to agree with my conclusion, the lamest of lame prosecutions doesn't negate my conclusion and the much-celebrated verdict amongst those who sniff the killer's excrement and proclaim "Roses!" cannot diminish my conclusion. It's okay, though, I'll live, as will they.
Okay, so you've reached your conclusion. How about some detail about what led to that conclusion?
How about if Martin hadn't started banging Zimmerman's head into the ground?
Zimmerman could have been a pizza delivery guy who couldn't figure out which building was which when looking to make his delivery. He just happens to be heading the same direction as Martin while looking for building numbers or condo numbers. Martin thinks he's being followed. The pizza guy then sees Martin and wonders if he can tell him where building 4 is. He gets out of the truck and goes around the corner to ask and gets punched in the face before being taken down for some ground and pound.
Sorry, but you don't get a free pass to start beating on someone because you think they are following you and get out of their vehicle.
If Martin initiated an attack on Zimmerman, it was Martin who should have kept his ass from attacking another person.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, but there is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
The verdict was correct.
Pedro, thanks for offering the hypothetical scenario about the pizza delivery. In the past I've thought of a similar scenario but never have had occasion to describe it here. The scenario you describe points to a consideration about the law regarding self-defense. I'm talking specifically about the part of self-defense law that says if you're not actually attacked, then only the imminent threat of attack legally justifies the use of force.
My version of Pedro's scenario is a visitor to the complex, having trouble finding the address he's looking for, so he's riding along slowly, trying to read house numbers in the dark. He's on the phone with the person he's planning to visit, trying to get some assistance on figuring out his location. He also keeps looking toward the guy out walking along, thinking of pulling up and asking him directions.
Up to this point, the lost visitor would look exactly the same as GZ looked while following TM in his car. The similarity would continue at the point where GZ got out on foot. The lost visitor might be getting out to walk up close to a house to see the number, or might even see TM go running off and jog after him briefly, wanting to get his attention so he could ask him directions.
As to what happened after that in the actual incident, you have to look to the evidence. I'm not going to go into that here, because the point of my response to PedroM's post has to do with what I wrote above, about the requirement that a threat of attack be clearly imminent before the law allows force in self-defense.
Neither Pedro's hypothetical nor mine is the way this encounter happened, but either hypothetical scenario shows why it makes sense for the law to limit the use of force to an actual attack or an imminent threat: The further you are from an actual attack, the more room there is for misinterpretation of the other person's actions. It's disturbing to think that TM would have done the same thing if in fact GZ had been a lost visitor or a pizza guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008
I only have one question for you " Did You See All Of That......NO
Then you have NO proof that ANY of that actually happened " now do you " ??????
Your claim that Pedro can't prove some version that would make GZ innocent may be worth making if you just want a general discussion of guilt or innocence. If you're talking about the law, you've got a problem: burden of proof. There actually is plenty of evidence to indicate one plausible scenario about how it all adds up, but even if there were not, GZ would not have had to prove that it happened in some way that would make him innocent. The prosecution would have had to prove that it did not.
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.
