Bricker
November 26, 2013, 4:58pm
121
you_with_the_face:
If they can make any inferences they want to make, regardless of what the evidence actually supports, then it’s stupid to say the law is why Zimmerman was acquitted. It’s more accurate to assign responsibility to the jury’s imagination and willingness to swallow bs, no matter how wrong and silly it is.
“Making such leaps of inference” is a load. The juror faulted Martin for defending himself against the man who confronted him. Never mind the fact that Zimmerman denied confronting the kid, so it wasn’t even that she afforded him any credence in this part of the story. The “leap of inference” made was that Martin was in the wrong because he didn’t run away, and this “wrongness” enabled Zimmerman to shoot him dead.
You may consider such thinking fine and dandy. But let’s not pretend the law is why such crazy notions exists.
During the pendency of Zimmerman’s trial for second-degree murder, you repeatedly offered analyses and predictions about how the jury would view the evidence, what instructions the law would allow the jury to hear, and what the results would likely be. You even invoked your supposed expertise as a vet during one exchange about Zimmerman’s head injury:
No it doesn’t. The rationale for dressing closed wounds is the same regardless of closure method. I can say this confidently as a vet.
If Zimmerman had a gash on his head incurred from the ground or sidewalk, it would be pretty contaminated with dirt and other debris, even if it was washed as thoroughly as can be in the back of a police care. Closure is usually contradicated for dirty wounds because of the risk of infection.
Only to be rebutted with a series of citations:
Well now I’m officially disagreeing with you, but you’re probably right to the extent use of cyanoacrylates with animals given the fur and cleanliness issues.
Here’s a 2002 report from the Emergency Medicine Journal indicating no additional dressing is needed unless it’s likely to be picked at, for instance by a very young child.
Here’s an article quoting a New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that cyanoacrylates act as its own dressing. Singer, A.J., Hollander, J.E., & Quinn, J.V. (1997). Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. The New England Journal of Medicine, 33, 1142-1148.
Here’s an article from a wound care journal for nurses indicating cyanoacrylate dressings are more useful since gauze and bandaging are not required: Abstract: Evaluation of a Cyanoacrylate Dressing to Treat Skin Tears in the Acute Care Population (2010 WOCN/WCET Joint Conference (June 12-16, 2010))
Last, but, not least, here’s a portion of a Google book, Biomaterials for Clinical Applications indicating no other dressing is needed (if link doesn’t work, it’s at p. 229): Biomaterials for Clinical Applications - Sujata K. Bhatia - Google Books
At which point you admitted there was a small chance you might have been mistaken, and then quickly changed the subject.
It’s quite astonishing to me that after that extensively flawed track record, you now feel confident to again enter the discussion with your opinion about the factual application of the law to the case at hand.