You seem to be engaged in a game where you exaggerate Zimmerman statements and then say that it doesn’t match the forensic evidence. To get the level of damage you insist on Zimmerman would be dead and we would be trying Trayvon for Murder.
In the real world your hands don’t get bloodied, or even bruised, when punching someone in the nose. Damage to the hands occurs when you’re hitting bone, not cartilage.
It is not impossible that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, mounted him and grabbed his head to inflict further damage.
This would be consistent with the injuries to Martin and Zimmerman. Whether or not this actually happened is a separate issue, but it’s certainly possible given the current known facts.
I would characterize Trayvon Martin’s attack on George Zimmerman as “sustained, savage, and brutal” simply because the attack continued as Zimmerman screamed for help and was not even fighting back. Of course, I apply these words in the psychological sense.
I’m sure some could be convinced the attack was brutal after seeing the photograph taken of the back of Zimmerman’s head shortly after the fight. http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2012/04/20/news/web_photos/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain082734--525x275.jpg
But scalp wounds bleed easily, and it looks far worse than it actually was. So, that too would only be savage and brutal in a psychological sense.
Whether the medical assessments of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman reflect “sustained, savage, and brutal” is a separate question.
Of course, I’m not sure the question will be legally relevant. First, I don’t believe victims of assault are under any legal obligation to wait around until they have sustained injuries consistent with a “savage and brutal beating” before acting in self-defense. Second, Zimmerman states he believed that Trayvon Martin was reaching for Zimmerman’s gun, and that he had the intent to use it (which, if true, certainly could have caused serious or life-threatening injury).
But to actually try to answer the question anyway… I think the fact the attack was “sustained” is pretty clear. “Savage” and “brutal”- in the medical sense- would be a matter for debate among forensic experts. Investigator Serino- who some Z-haters swear by- described the injuries as “marginally consistent” with a life-threatening attack.
In the big picture, the evidence is consistent* enough* with Zimmerman’s account to convincingly support his case for self-defense. Even Serino- who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter- did not dispute Zimmerman’s right to defend himself. His focus was on the fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle and “failed to” identify himself. (which, incidentally, I think was an extremely weak basis to charge someone.)
No, not at all. I’m commenting on all of the numerous times in these threads that I’ve seen what happened described as some sort of vicious, brutal, sustained attack, that went on for several minutes of continuous savage violence.
Zimmerman defenders keep saying things like continuous attack, sustained beating and getting pounded on and repeatedly being smashed into the pavement, and the like, when the physical evidence supports one punch to the face, and that’s it.
I’ve seen it repeated so many times, that it seems like people are starting to assume that this sustained brutal attack is an established fact of evidence when it is clearly not.
Have you ever been in a fight, or seen someone up close that has been in a fight? How do their hands look? Pristine, save for one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand? Or scraped, and scratched up with traces of blood and/or saliva present? There’s a discrepancy between what some are saying that he did to Zimmerman, and what his hands show. His hands aren’t made of teflon. Skin is pretty vulnerable to damage in a vicious brutal beat down scenario.
Just trying to clear the air on this point and fight a little ignorance, that’s all.
No, I haven’t said I was certain of anything. The evidence that we know of to date is consistent with a scenario where Martin punches Zimmerman in the face and beats his head on the ground.
Actually, I have. One can beat someone up by punching him in the nose, and then banging his head against the ground, without sustaining significant damage to the hands.
So you don’t think Martin punched Zimmerman at all? Or do you believe Martin punched Zimmerman without leaving any marks at all?
Yes, several times. Have you?
It depends on the fight. I would not expect that a fight consisting of punches to the face that struck only cartilage, followed by a rush and pounding one’s opponent’s head against the ground, to produce significant damage to the hands.
You apparently do not believe it is possible to punch someone in the face and pound their head against the ground without producing significant damage to the hands. Yet you say you have never beaten anyone up.
May I ask why you are so certain that any street fight, even one with relatively little punching, and that apparently only to soft targets like the nose, will inevitably produce major trauma to the hands?
Regards,
Shodan
A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
The evidence includes the 911 call where you can here the yelling as well as eye witness reports of the assault as well as the physical evidence documented above.
Consider yours fought.
I once got into a fight with three people and despite sustaining blows the head, face, shoulders, chest, my inner thighs and having my hair pulled I ended up walking away with no scratches or visible bruises. I struck each one in the face and head with my fists at least once and two of them multiple times and my hands weren’t bruised or cut. So yeah, it happens.
I feel the need to make it clear that I’m not an internet tough guy. I was in excellent physical shape at the time and was able to walk away only after they became too winded to continue the fight. I was frightened and I can’t explain how I was able to come out unscathed. I did have a few sore spots the following day but still no visible bruising, cuts or abrasions.
If you don’t put it quotes it is what you are saying, not someone else. You are apparently unwilling to stand behind your own words. All you are doing is creating additional ignorance with your straw man arguments.
If you have first actual experience in fist fights then trot it out, instead of asking rhetorical questions abouts other people’s experience.
So you got slapped down by the mod, huh?
Did you learn anything, or are you still going to threadshit?
What does “threadshit” mean?
I looked it up on urban dictionary. I didn’t think it was an actual word.
Anyway, to answer your question, I wouldn’t consider my post off-topic in the sense that you seem to be using the word.
It’s not nearly as off-topic as the one I’m typing now or the one I’m responding to.
Posting a link that the mod has to delete is not exactly substantive posting.
Since you’e sucking at arguing your own side, perhaps I can help.
You could talk some more about how this might very well be a politically-motivated prosecution. I’m up for that. It’s possible, although I’m guessing there’s more evidence that hasn’t been publicly released yet.
You could also talk about the fact that Zimmerman isn’t a giant gun nut–in fact, he bought his gun only after a cop encouraged him to keep one for protection against dogs. This is a solid point, although not exonerative in and of itself.
Do you need any more help with that? I might could even come up with some more.
I don’t think anyone had run out of things to talk about. I have several, lengthy posts above that you seem to have missed. Although, it’s everybody else that suffers not being able to view a very entertaining anti-Zimmerman animation.
Also, Zimmerman is a registered democrat- which also makes him a little less likely to be a gun nut.
He may or may not be a gun nut. That isn’t the point.
The point is that he very much appears to be a policewannabe nut.
He actually “wanted to be” a judge. He no longer had a high opinion of the police. He was a concerned citizen who gave a damn about his neighborhood. He even spoke out on behalf of a black homeless man who was attacked by a policeman’s son.
Let’s not go electing him the next Martin Luther King Jr. just yet. You present his “speaking out” in this case is stated a little simply.
Check my post from the other thread.
As far as black people and the NAACP not supporting his claims. This comes as no big surprise considering that they despise the guy.
Bottom line though is that I strongly doubt that he would have shown up to a city hall meeting and speak about it publicly (and this is recorded, mind you) if he didn’t feel strongly about it. The recording also makes some their claims against him provably false.
He’s also a workplace douchebag.
I don’t know why we should be impressed by his low opinion of the police. In fact, that makes him look even worse. "Stupid cops! Telling me not to follow! I’ll show them by bagging me a punk! But please do keep defending him. With friends like you, he’s sure to win more.
A “cop” didn’t tell Zimmerman NOT to follow anyone. The 9-1-1 operator was not a police officer. There was no lawful order issued that would prevent Zimmerman from following the suspect Martin.
The statement, “We don’t need you to do that”, is vague. “Do not follow the suspect”, is a clear and definitive statement. We don’t “need” you to clean your room but if you do, that’s OK with me. We don’t “need” you to peel potatoes but if you do, that’s OK with me, also.
Do you think that Corey will produce this “former colleague” in court and allow them to tesitfy “under oath” about Zimmerman’s character? How well do you think the “former colleague” will hold up under cross examination? Does this “former colleague” have a personel ax to grind? Did Zimmerman get a raise or shift change that the “former colleague” felt should have gone to them instead? Is the “former colleague” simply lying to get their 15 minutes of fame?
I’d love for you to direct your ire towards, esmeraldia. She’s the one who’s been playing up his virtuous, law-abiding qualities. Her posts beg for the obvious rejoinder–Zimmerman ain’t no virtuous, law-abiding, high-quality human being, as evidenced by numerous accounts about him from people who’d have nothing to gain by lying or exaggerating.
If his workplace tomfoolery isn’t relevant to the discussion, neither is the fact that Junior wants to be a judge when he grows up. Or that he signed up to be Neighborhood Watch captain.