I’m speaking rhetorically … being hyperbolic.
**Magiver **is presenting a biased version of the events with his unprovoked vicious continuous beatings for the sin of a simple question being asked. Fine. You’ve now got my biased version of events wherein Martin heroically defended himself against an aggressor hell-bent on restraining him – and he got a bullet in the chest for his troubles.
Fair enough. Maybe when more evidence comes out, we can tell which scenario is the more likely.
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with being punched once. The evidence suggests he was popped in the nose, fell down and scraped his head. That is the most logical explanation for his minor wounds and his healthy appearance and demeanor in the police station video. An attack that supposedly included multiple punches and repeated bashes to the head on concrete would have left more serious, visible wounds. The notion that there was a life-threatening ‘beating’ is pure fantasy. The cops didn’t buy it and neither should anyone else capable of logic and reason.
Is this a theory that one must be punched twice before one can defend oneself?
I don’t think anyone, even Zimmerman, has suggested he was punched more than once.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it is a theory that is consistent with the known evidence.
Except for the part you left out–that one punch to the nose can kill.
Of course, it’s quite common. In fantasyland.
It’s been posted on this board numerous times, which you should know as you posted in the same threads. Have you forgotten the ‘mma-style’ beat down that Zimmerman fans pointed to as rock-solid eyewitness testimony, at least until it wasn’t?
Or in Las Vegas. Some people even regard Las Vegas as a sort of fantasyland. Is that what you meant?
Gee Bricker, one instance now qualifies as quite common? Care to speculate on what percentage of nose-punches result in death? One in a gazillion, perhaps?
Rare, to be sure.
But certainly NOT “fantasyland.”
Do you understand that under Florida law, a bloody nose is sufficient injury to qualify as “serious bodily injury?”
Well, if you and the law can figure out which person it will be next, we can just give that person the right to self-defense and all the rest of us, safely assured one punch can’t kill us, can be satisfied with a faaaar more sensible law, namely, that we should wait for a second.
Until you figure it out, I’m assuming it could be me, and I’m here to tell you I’m gonna hit back after one, or maybe even before then if I believe harm is near certain.
I was unaware there was a list of accceptable boo-boos. If so, even bringing the most minor of charges would an exercise in futility. Of course, that is besides the point. If it ever gets to a jury, they can decide whether or not it was a reasonable fear.
Zimmerman has already been exposed as a liar. The police found inconsistencies between his account and the physical evidence. That includes exaggerating the extent of the alleged attack, which is borne out by the lack of serious injuries. It won’t be too difficult for the prosecutor to construct a credible scenario wherein Zimmerman is portrayed as both aggressor and liar, and perhaps even a manipulator of evidence.
Some drunk drivers cause death and serious bodily injury with their vehicles. Just to be on the safe side, perhaps you should consider going out and shooting everyone you see drinking a beer.
He had a broken nose. How does that fact square with your claim of no serious injuries?
I don’t agree with you. The prosecutor cannot, as a matter of law, sustain a conviction on the evidence we now know.
Of course, there is undoubtedly more evidence in the prosecutorial arsenal. But in the final analysis, the jury can’t guess that Zimmerman probably was an aggressor within the meaning of the law. The prosecutor’s “credible scenario” is not enough to convict.
Why not? Because it can’t simply paint Zimmerman as an aggressor and a liar. It has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. And that means it has to exclude all other reasonable scenarios, except guilt.
Do you understand that?
The combined evidence suggests he was pummeled for an extended period. Black eyes, broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, all the screaming and begging heard via the 911 call. It all aligns with his version of events as we know it at this point. There is no evidence that he started the fight at this point. And to say he pursued Martin with a gun suggests he had it out and drawn. Again, there is no indication that Zimmerman did anything beyond responding to Martin’s question with his own question which was self explanatory.
I’ll be the first one condemning Zimmerman if actual evidence suggests he started the fight but so far all that has been presented is speculation. He showed no signs of hitting Martin but every sign of being assaulted. This is the evidence available NOW.
Can you answer something for me? I’ve asked it on other threads and it’s not addressed: why do you give a free pass to Zimmerman’s past as a living, breathing adult compared to Trayvon as a teenager? Zimmerman has had a past, which includes, but not limited to beating women, resisting arrest, impulsiveness, and a psychiatric record. On the other hand, Trayvon is demonized for having 1.5 ng/mL of THC in his blood while Zimmerman was being prescribed both uppers (mixed amphetamine salts) and downers (benzodiapenes)- *at the same friggin’ time *! These are controlled substances and are some of the most addictive drugs available, in fact, the legal drugs Zimmerman was taking is quantitatively more harmful than THC. Where was his blood test? Oh, yeah, I forgot, he didn’t seek hospital care that night. So please, if you would - or anyone for that matter - tell me why a white man with a psychiatric record, who beats women, who has been arrested previously for violence, as is prescribed addictive controlled substances, gets the benefit of the doubt over the dead 17 year old who smoked pot. Please? Thanks.
Yes, I certainly think so.
Here’s what I think. If Martin was confronted by Zimmerman in a hostile manner, then he had “no duty to retreat” and had a “right to stand his ground”. Now if Zimmerman approached Martin in a non-hostile manner, and Martin just physically attacked him, then Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. However, I believe that the onerous *should * fall on Zimmerman because he failed to the directions of the dispatcher.
I also don’t buy the argument that “talking” doesn’t matter. Yelling “Fire!” in the amphitheater is a crime (as it should be): People ought not not to be able to use words that’ll provoke a physical response and be able to neatly run behind the law with one’s tail tucked between one’s legs when you get hit. I would like to know exactly how Zimmerman approached Martin and exactly what he said. I don’t believe for a moment that Martin went on a “rampage” unprovoked.
Sigh… Do have any evidence that Zimmerman did anything wrong prior to being beaten by Martin? If the police had any indication he was under the influence of harmful drugs he would have been tested. It’s rational to defend yourself and this is what Zimmerman did after an extended period of time. He did not shoot Martin immediately. He pleaded with him. Martin had every chance to walk away and he was close by his house. He chose to continue assaulting Zimmerman. He could have talked with Zimmerman but this did not happen.
It all comes down to evidence. You can speculate until the Milky Way collides with Andromeda and it won’t affect the trial. What will affect the trial is evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s version of events.
Really, what is so hard to understand about this?
.svg){kind=link}