A quarter of his heart was blown away by that bullet.
Obvious things are obvious.
Your cite is incorrect. Check the primary source: the autopsy report.
I am not a medical professional, but I have read the autopsy report, and some plausible analyses of what happens when a quarter of a heart ceases to exist and a set of lungs collapse. At this point, I would be surprised if a qualified medical professional states that voluntary movement and extended conversation were possible after a gunshot like that.
Two brothers are fighting. The mom yells at the oldest, 'Michael, stop hitting your brother!". Michael protests, “But Mom, he hit be back first!”.
How you can claim that George’s ‘injuries’ are evidence of being ‘sucker-punched’ is beyond me. Do you really think George could have gotten those injuries only if Martin initiated the confrontation, and only if Martin sucker-punched him?
The injuries suggest a struggle of some kind. There is ZERO evidence of who punched who first. There is scant evidence for a sustained, savage beat-down as described by George. And George’s narrative of the ‘sucker-punch’ requires the complete suspension of all common sense and any sense of rational thought to believe.
Evidence shows that one of the participants was in the struggle was engaged in a phone call when it began. Which one was more likely caught unawares? “Hang on a minute, babe - Ima start a fist fight.” Suuuuuure.
Don’t you remember the theory about that? He was trying to impress her by acting like a thug and beating someone up while he was talking to her. How she’d be impressed by something that she wouldn’t even have been able to see, I don’t know. Ok, well maybe its not an airtight theory then.
:rolleyes:
Well, I am a hunter, and have shot animals in similar fashion. Most, as you intuit, drop immediately.
But not all. I absolutely guarantee you that no medical professional will say, to a medical certainty, that brief movement and speech were impossible with that injury.
Are you saying it’s impossible, or unlikely?
From a 2010 thread (predating the current controversy):
What is your response, you with the face?
I don’t know why I bother - you are obviously not paying attention even to the basic facts.
From the autopsy report (cite - pdf)
[QUOTE=Dragon Ash]
Two brothers are fighting. The mom yells at the oldest, 'Michael, stop hitting your brother!". Michael protests, “But Mom, he hit be back first!”.
[/QUOTE]
And if the younger brother has a broken nose, two black eyes, and gashes to the back of his head, and Michael doesn’t have a mark on him besides a scrape on his knuckles, do you believe Michael?
I am afraid you are mistaken. Zimmerman says rather clearly -
after the dispatcher tells him that ‘we don’t need you to (follow Martin)’, to which Zimmerman responds “OK”.
Further evidence that Zimmerman got out to look at house numbers is where he says he doesn’t know house numbers -
IOW, this is another part of Zimmerman’s account that is backed up by evidence. Zimmerman’s account that he was not following Zimmerman, but that Zimmerman came back and attacked him, is backed up by Zimmerman’s statement “these assholes, they always get away” and also “I don’t know where this kid is”. It is hard to follow someone if you don’t know where they are. Zimmerman’s account that he was not following Martin when Martin attacked him is backed up by his statement that he doesn’t know house numbers.
IOW, according to the parts of Zimmerman’s account that have evidence to back them up, Zimmerman was following Martin, lost him, and went to look at the house number so the police would know where to meet him. Then Martin came back, and attacked Zimmerman.
And this is the same story Zimmerman has been telling all along. You don’t have to take his word for it - like I say, ignore all the parts that don’t have evidence behind them. The parts that do have evidence behind them are what Zimmerman has been saying from the get-go.
Yes, there are clearly parts that do not have evidence behind them. If the State wishes to use any of those parts against Zimmerman, they have to disprove them. They cannot simply assert that they are lies - they have to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if the argument is “Zimmerman exaggerated and/or said self-serving stuff, so if he said something, that proves it didn’t happen”, no, it doesn’t work that way.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s no evidence that Zimmerman punched Martin at all, either before or after Martin struck him. The injuries to Zimmerman’s head and Martin’s hand are strong evidence that Martin struck Zimmerman. So, logically, Martin must have punched first.
It’s possible Zimmerman grabbed or threatened Martin in such a way that would justify him punching him, although there’s no evidence for it, but there’s no reason for Martin to continue the attack.
Don’t forget, even if Zimmerman did start the physical confrontation, he’s still entitled to use lethal force in self defence if he has no other option to escape.
ETA: All that said, that Martin sucker punched him, or at least attacked him without provocation, is still the most likely option. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way, so he’s not going to attack someone in that circumstance. He’s dumb, but not that dumb.
Okay, so I’m suddenly supposed to find Zimmerman’s claims about Martin credible because two posters on the SDMB posted some unverfified stories about bullet wounds in the heart? It’s crazy, I know, but I get the distinct impression that you couldn’t find a reputable source to come back at me with via google, so instead you cite random personages on the SDMB as though we’re all a bunch of cardiologists in here.
He didn’t know where the kid is because the kid ran away from him, and he lost sight of Martin in the darkness. This doesn’t alter the fact that Zimmerman was following him.
And so what if he said “Okay” in response to the dispatcher? “Okay” is not evidence that Zimmerman stopped his pursuit. Taken literally, it’s only evidence that Zimmerman merely heard and understood what the dispatcher had just said.
That’s not evidence that he exited the car to find a house number. Evidence would be him actually saying “I’m looking for a house number”. Not once did he say that. All he acknowledged was following Martin.
And yet he did say he was following him. No amount of denial will change this irrefutable fact.
It’s not that its unsubstantiated anecdotes that bothers me; it’s that they are anecdotes on the extreme ends of possibility. Sure, there was a guy once who got a spike driven through his skull and suffered no long term effects, but that’s hardly the norm.
And when a bullet rips away the better part of a heart, sure maybe one chance in a million that the guy could make a speech before keeling over, but that’s hardly the norm.
I rip on Bricker for citing the SDMB and this is what you come back with.
Lol
And Terr, next time you scrape the bottom of the barrel for medical information, you just might want to read it before posting it. I mean, it’s only 6 paragraphs.
Martin was killed by a hollow point bullet. Having 25% of your heart blasted away would cause massive “hydrodynamic shock”, doncha think?
Would you believe the FBI?
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
“For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.”
“Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.”
… and before you tell me of “hydrodynamic shock”: from the same document
“The much discussed “shock” of bullet impact is a fable and “knock down” power is a myth.”
The FBI says different. But I guess you and ywtf know better.
The FBI says everyone who gets shot in the heart with a hollow point bullet from a foot away monologizes before they snuff it?
Ok. Thanks Agent Liddy.
“Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.”