[QUOTE=you with the face]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Aren’t you trying to shift the burden of proof here? You are the one claiming that Zimmerman’s story isn’t possible - isn’t it up to you to show that death from those kinds of gunshot wounds are always instantaneous?
Regards,
Shodan
I got “hydrodynamic shock” from that silly TV tropes that you cited. Maybe you should be more selective with your sources if you have problem with such fables.
Your FBI cite also does not support the idea that Martin clearly articulated “okay, you got me” after having his heart and lungs blown up. Even if we accept that he could have sat upright after taking this shot, we still have to accept that he spoke as blood was filling his lungs.
ZImmerman claimed that not only was Martin talking immediately after he shot him, but also while Zimmerman was “restraining” him. I’m sorry, but this is just too ridiculous to believe.
As we repeatedly found out, things that you find are “too ridiculous to believe” are quite possible, in opinions backed by experts.
I didn’t say that it wasn’t possible. But just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s believable.
Lots of things are possible but not believable.
“Okay, you got it” is not believable even if we take the gunshot wound out of the equation. Not only because it’s contrived, but because Zimmerman lacks the credibility to be believed absent any corroborating evidence.
He was following Martin. And then he lost sight, and didn’t know where Martin had gone. At which point he was - wait for it - no longer following him. Because, as I think most sane people would agree, it is real hard to follow someone when you don’t have them in sight, and don’t know where they are.
And when taken in conjunction with his next words, which are agreement that he wants the cops to meet him, and arrangements on where exactly to meet them, this is evidence that Zimmerman was no longer following Martin. Because he couldn’t - as mentioned, you can’t follow someone if you don’t know where they are. Nor are you likely to be following someone after they “get away”.
Incorrect - Zimmerman also acknowledged that he had lost Martin, didn’t know where he was, and thought that he had gotten away. He said so at the time.
Thus, long before Zimmerman had any need of an alibi, he spontaneously made statements that indicated what he was doing, and why. He was no longer following Martin, and didn’t know where he was. He stated later, that he didn’t know the house number, and went to look at the sign to get it. And guess what - well before he shot anyone, his statement that he didn’t know the house number was recorded. So we know what he was thinking, long before he needed to have an alibi.
So, again, the evidence indicates that Zimmerman did not know where Martin was, and therefore could not have any intention to trigger an immediate confrontation with him that night. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Martin doubled back and attacked him.
Regards,
Shodan
So Zimmerman was following Martin, until he lost him. Then he went *hunting *for him.
How else did he manage to find himself so far away from his truck, behind the houses, where there were no addresses for him to see if he hadn’t walked back there looking for one of the assholes who always get away? Oh yeah, he wanted to establish a perimeter and keep the perp within line of sight so he could point directly to the bastard instead of telling the cops, “he went back there,” and letting them do what they do.
Most sane people would realize that someone might lose sight of a person temporarily, but soon reestablish sight if they continue looking for them.
Except he didn’t make arrangements on where exactly to meet the cops. In fact, he actively avoided doing this. The dispatcher, bless his heart, tried to get Zimmerman to meet the cops at a set location. But GZ wasn’t having none of that. He ended the call by telling the cops to call him for directions once they got there.
You already know all of this. Beats me why I’m typing this out. I guess I’m super bored today.
Zimmerman would have needed an alibi the moment the cops hauled him to the station and interviewed him, so WTF are you saying?
Well, I also mentioned my own experiences shooting a large mammal in the heart. Admittedly, in no event did my target speak to me, but one several occasions it ran dozens of feet before collapsing, and cleaning the body revealed a shot heart. Why isn’t that persuasive?
Here is a link to a Google Books image of an 1895 treatise called “A Study of Gunshot Wounds:”
Or this one:
What about those?
He wasn’t fearful until after the kid started attacking him- at which point Trayvon denied him an opportunity to get back to his truck.
Yes.
The evidence must disprove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. If there are two reasonable hypotheses, one of guilt and one that does not find guilt, the accused must be acquitted, even if the guilty hypothesis is much more likely.
The altercation began at the top of the “T” and then moved southward, ending with TM getting shot. Ear-witnesses confirm the altercation moving south from the “T”, and Zimmerman’s keyring was found at the top of the “T”.
Sorry, Zimmerman’s claims about Martin are still not credible.
That’s true – you did not explicitly claim that it wasn’t possible. But you endorsed another’s claim that it was not possible. I was initially replying to sugaree, who DID say it wasn’t possible:
I asked how she knew this, and then you responded:
Credible is for the jury to determine. I’m asking you if you now agree they are possible.
To some extent it does, but not entirely. Why did he walk up towards the drink section and seem to pick up something off of the ground? Me, I’m not one to judge.. I always appear suspicious to people. But I’m aware of it.
He had a cut on his finger. And if he had lived longer, bruises probably would have formed.
I think it is next to meaningless that either party’s friends or family claim it was that person’s voice.
I don’t accept that he did this. However, innocent people may still make efforts to appear even more innocent.
That makes no sense to me. So if there’s a video of Bob executing Frank but there’s also Bob himself saying, “Wasn’t me. I was in Cleveland at the time,” then he’s acquitted?
Yes, I know, hyperbole, but really … a little clarity on that concept would be appreciated.
The former precludes the latter as a reasonable hypothesis.
I am sure that book was the cutting edge of medical research in 1895, but perhaps we could keep our cites a little more recent. And hunting stories only count if the animal was autopsied by a medical professional, not just field dressed and eaten.
I think it’s so implausible that it might as well be impossible, Bricker. But don’t let my beliefs stop you from dazzling us with more deer shootin’ anecdotes and publications from the 19th century. You and Terr are currently running neck and neck in the I’ll Make Myself Look Real Stupid and Desperate by Citing Complete Crap contest.