No, the simplest explanation is that the person who was getting beaten was screaming, and stopped screaming when the beating stopped.
And your evidence that Martin made that prediction would be…?
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve already covered this possibility, and explained why I think it makes no sense.
In order to determine who was screaming, one would naturally look at who was sustaining injuries while the screaming was going on.
Having shot Martin, why would Zimmerman continue to scream for help?
Circular logic at the end. I’ve already covered this possibility, and explained why I think it makes little sense given the length of time, witness statements, and injuries on Zimmerman that are completely inconsistent with somebody trying to protect themselves from a gun.
Do you care to address that, or just stick to more specious arguments?
Did I scare you with the martial arts stuff? Sorry, man, I didn’t mean to talk above your head re: that sort of thing. I just happen to have some training.
And yeah, you permanently destroyed any credibility you had with me by invoking Florida law.
My question, is, though…what kind of world do concealed-carry advocates want? Do they want a world where innocent people don’t get killed in crossfire? A world where children don’t accidentally hurt or kill themselves or others with guns?
Because I can get behind that.
I’m just not sure that MORE guns=LESS shooting.
I mean, let’s face it, a drunken angry redneck is probably not someone who should be carrying a concealed handgun. Sadly, drunken angry rednecks are a VERY common occurrence on weekend nights. So what do you do? Have a gunfight or two on every street on Friday and Saturday nights?
I mean, it might be a good idea to find a way to control the drunk/angry problem BEFORE handing out concealed carry permits and handguns to every idiot who hasn’t YET gotten a felony.
I mean, sure, eventually, all the idiots would get killed. Who wants to be ducking for cover on Friday night every week for 6 months, though?
Some of us really, honestly, don’t want to be part of the gunfight. Can we not be allowed to sit quietly and watch TV?
No, you don’t. No one with real martial arts training talks the way you do. Next you’re going to tell us that you have to register your hands as lethal weapons with the state.
Someone loses credit with you by referencing the law?
A number of different threads here have discussed the statistics for those that carry concealed weapons. On the whole the statistics show those who legally carry a weapon are law abiding citizens.
How many stereotypes can you fit in one post?
The prosecutor’s have prepared an animation that simulates in vivid detail the precise events that occurred on the night Trayvon was murdered.
The re-enactment begins about :25 seconds in. I have to tell you, it changed my mind about the case.
[[link deleted]]
What makes you think that having credibility with “you” is of any importance to “me”?
I notice that you’re the only one saying you have martial arts training. Even if that were true, you’re communicating over the internet. If you were able to send a virus you “might” be considered intimidating. As it stands, you’re just someone else with access to a PC.
The rest of your post doesn’t even pertain to the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation. It’s amusing to read but so are most rants. Have you thought about making your own “Leave Brittney Alone”-type video explaining your view of the Martin/Zimmerman incident? That could be internet gold.
Well he felt he had to hold him down has he bleed out out of fear and claimed he didnt’ know he had hit him with a bullet, why would he quit?
Because he was no longer being beaten.
Regards,
Shodan
How could this sustained savage beating upon Zimmerman be true if Martin only had one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand. How can you guys square the fact of the lack of anything but one scratch below one knuckle on one hand with the brutal, relentless, savage, and continuous beating that you keep asserting as established fact. What was he hitting Zimmerman with then? It wasn’t his fists as they were pristine, save for that one tiny scratch below one knuckle. The evidence does not support that this happened at all, yet I constantly see this depicted as a brutal, savage, sustained beating. Where is the evidence of this? On Zimmerman, we have evidence of one punch to the face that is it. The two small cuts on his head could have easily been him falling back on the grass after the punch and scratching his head on a stick, or on small stones in the grass. Where is any physical evidence of this savage ongoing beating on Martin’s hands? Are his hands made of stone? Impervious to damage? Fights are brutal. Skin is pretty tender. You guys keep describing this continuous, and savage beating as if this is a given, when the physical evidence supports no such thing. You constantly bleat on about not jumping to conclusions without evidence to support it, but your depiction of this supposed sustained vicious beating by Martin is not remotely supported by the physical evidence.
Oh yes that non-injury causing beating slash non-scream stopping smothering.
Knock it off. The main rule at this board is “Don’t be a jerk,” and that video doesn’t contribute anything to the debate.
According to Zimmerman’s story, Martin punched him in the face. This is backed up by Zimmerman’s broken nose, and the scrape on Martin’s knuckle. Also according to Zimmerman, Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head against the ground. This is backed up by the cuts to the back of Zimmerman’s head.
Regards,
Shodan
Because the autopsy was sloppy and they didn’t check for subcutaneous capillary damage on Martin’s knuckles. Bruises would not arise after death. After the Sanford police heard Zimmerman’s story, they should have asked the medical examiner to check. Considering that Sanford doesn’t have a full time homicide detective, this isn’t very surprising.
I don’t think I was being a jerk. Didn’t contribute anything to the debate? It wasn’t like it was a link to a “Never Gonna Give You Up” video. In addition to the obvious entertainment value inherent to the video- and the hilarity it universally provokes:
It demonstrated the necessarily absurd account of events necessary to explain the facts as we know them. For example, the animator had to show a running Trayvon Martin being overtaken by a Zimmerman, who is walking and talking on the phone.
I’m sorry you didn’t care for it. 
I felt it was an obnoxious summary of your view of people who don’t agree with your version of what happened here. I admit I didn’t watch it all the way through, but watching people say “coon” over and over isn’t my idea of entertainment. You can go ahead and dismiss other people’s arguments, but do it with your own words instead of links to cartoons.
Ok, so if the medical examiner’s report is not to be trusted, do we just assume then that he indeed had whatever damage is necessary to his hands to account for this continuous, savage, brutal beating? The lack of damage is meaningless evidently then, so do you just imagine the damage was there and blame it on shoddy investigation? How does that work? No evidence of damage to his hands is evidence of damage to his hands? Does that hold up in court?
That isn’t necessary. The damage to Martin’s hand, and the injuries to Zimmerman’s nose, are consistent with Zimmerman’s having been hit in the face. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head are consistent with having his head beaten against the ground.
The brutal, savage, continuous beating you keep harping on consists mostly of having his head beaten against the ground, which does not necessarily damage the hands. So there isn’t any inconsistency, at least with the evidence known to date.
The inconsistency lies in the notion that Zimmerman was bleeding from several injuries, and Martin had hardly a mark on him - but Martin is supposedly the one screaming for help.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? Are you a forensic analyst? You can say this with a legal certainty? The descriptions of the two small lacerations on record are certainly not consistent with having his head repeatedly beaten against concrete. Why no smearing of the blood? Why no scrape marks? Why nothing but two clean, straight, small cuts? How does concrete make perfectly straight and clean lacerations? Look at some concrete. Can you honestly see that substance making clean, straight cuts like that? How? Are you saying that you are certain that these could not have been the result of scratching his head on a stick when he fell back on the grass?
How do you have this level of certainty? Where is the continuous, savage and brutal beating evidence? If you don’t have it, then I suggest your side stop characterizing the events that way as if it was accepted and established fact. It is anything but. There is physical evidence that Zimmerman was punched in the face once. There is no physical evidence that proves that Martin repeatedly bashed his head on concrete or that there was a sustained, savage, brutal beat down. None at all. Again, Zimmerman’s statements are not physical evidence. How do you savagely beat someone for an extended time, and only have one small scratch under one knuckle on one hand. Please explain how that can happen, or the whole sustained brutal beating meme needs to stop.
No. Are you?
No. Are you claiming that what you say is legally certain?
I am saying that Zimmerman’s, and Martin’s, injuries are consistent with Zimmerman’s story.
On Martin’s knuckle, Zimmerman’s nose, and on the back of Zimmerman’s head.
You are simply saying that evidence that contradicts your position doesn’t exist. That’s unfortunate, because, well, there it is.
I already explained how it can happen.
Regards,
Shodan
Seriously, one small scratch under one knuckle on one hand is evidence of a sustained, savage beating? Haha. Ok, I guess I can just disregard the rest of your posts then, since you are clearly not debating with intellectual honesty on this point. Or you truly do believe that, in which case, we are evidently not in the same reality here.
Also, I’m not claiming to be certain about anything. You are the one claiming to be certain of what the injuries prove. You are the one acting like the forensic analyst on the stand, not me. So if you can’t back it up, you shouldn’t be so certain about what you think you know to be true.
Also, you have not explained how one can savagely beat someone for an extended period of time, but end up with pristine hands, save for one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand. You do realize that scratch could have easily already been there before this happened right? He might have scratched his knuckle reaching into the fridge for his iced tea at 7-11. I get little scratches on the backs of my hands all the time, and I have never beat anyone up.
The physical evidence is wholly inconsistent with a savage, sustained, brutal beat down. Unless you are saying that Martin had hands of stone or some other material impervious to damage.