Let’s stay away from seeming to call other people stupid in this forum, please.
You should probably look up the difference between a mammal and a bird.
And remind me again what the basis for rejecting the older citations was – you know, the ones where you COULD read the book?
See, normally in debate, at this point the onus of proof would fall to you; I have provided enough citations to authority to show that brief movement and speech is possible even after such a wound. Your response appears to be simply, “No, it isn’t.”
I had thought this was pretty compelling:
Simply put, the lungs take in air, oxygen is transfered to the blood stream, the heart pumps the oygen-rich blood thru the circulatory system, oxygen is transfered to muscle tissue and organs, waste product is carried away and eventually filtered out, and the process is repeated.
If the heart stops pumping, no new oxygen is being brought to the muscle tissue and organs. The muscle tissue and organs begin to die which takes many seconds or minutes.
When the heart has a hole in it, the heart’s pumping action pushes some of the blood into the chest cavity reducing the amount of blood being pushed into the arteries. The muscles and organs become weaker until they are unable to function.
When a lung has a hole in it, air is pushed into the chest cavity. If that hole is a result of a foreign object being pushed thru the chest cavity wall exposing the lungs to external air pressure, the higher outside air pressure causes the lung(s) to collapse. Collapsed lungs can not transfer oxygen to the blood stream. The muscles and organs become weaker until they are unable to function.
How long a mammal can survive with a hole in either the heart or lungs or both, depends on how much oxygen was available to the tissue and organs when the blood supply was reduced or stopped.
I hope this helps cover the basics.
The bottomline is that a human being or deer can function for several minutes after being shot or stabbed in the heart/lungs.
And your point is what exactly?
afaict, it’s tha the abrasion was on a part of TM’s finger which is not the knuckle
The significance of the distinction is harder to come by than what the distinction is.
I agree.
Well, sugaree? you with the face?
It’s a friggin’ “Magic Bullet” argument. The whole crux of it is … “you know not everyone who has their heart obliterated dies right away. In rare cases, they actually make a speech first.”
Fine. Great. Dandy. So if the defense presents that as evidence, I’m sure the prosecution will come right back with a medical expert of their own saying, “judging by the damage to his system, in my expert opinion, Mr. Martin died immediately.”
Then we’re right back to, “yeah, but this one time, when some other guy got shot in the heart, it didn’t happen like that. Besides, I’m a deer hunter, so I know.”
I say again, while the however many minutes of oxygen the brain has left over is interesting, it doesn’t prove shit, because the outcome that you’re claiming probably happened (that Martin didn’t die right away, but said, “You got me, sherriff” first) is not the norm. That would be an exception.
Bricker, instead of yammering on a point that at the end of the day has little to do with Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, why don’t you answer the questions I’ve repeatedly (and politely) asked you twice already. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think you’re dodging what should be an extremely straightforward request.
Here are my questions for the third time:
What is the minimum evidence that could convince you that Zimmerman is criminally culpable? You keep saying the state hasn’t shown enough evidence for 2nd degree murder. What is an example of something that would meet that for you?
What part of Zimmerman’s story do you believe? All of it? None of it? Some of it? If the latter, how have you decided what parts are believable and which are not? Do you consider him a credible witness based on the evidence against him?
If you don’t think he’s credible and therefore don’t put much, if any, stock in his narrative, what state evidence do you think is lacking that shows this killing was an unjustified one? In other words, if we completely take Zimmerman’s statement off the table due to his lack of crediblity and solely look at the State’s case, what evidence in their possession fails to show that Zimmerman killed Martin, that he had ill-will towards the kid, and that a depraved mind figured into his taking Martin’s life that night?
Or how about “…judging by the damage to his system, in my expert opinion, Mr. Martin was wounded in a way that would have made speech difficult if not impossible”.
Because the State would have to prove it didn’t happen beyond a reasonable doubt. “Difficult if not impossible” leaves room for reasonable doubt.
Regards,
Shodan
NM
You are assuming an expert witness that would perjure themself. The trajectory of the bullet simply is not consistent with the effect you are talking about. What you are talking about is a shot to the central nervous system that would immediately incapacitate the target.
Go to this link and go to page 192.
You are talking about the kind of wound that a police sniper would be trying for in a hostage situation.
If you actually have a cite where an expert witness actually said what you said with a similar wound then trot it out.
If Trayvon Martin had actually got shot through the larynx, then he probably wouldn’t say anything either, but the bullet didn’t go anywhere near there either.
You seem to have given up on convicting Zimmerman based on real evidence and are using fantasy evidence.
Fantasy evidence. Nice. You’ve got Martin dancing around and making speeches with only three quarters of a heart and no lungs. Yeah, you’re on rock-solid ground there.
A claim doesn’t have to be proven impossible for a jury to rightfully reject it as false.
Martin sitting up and saying “okay, you got it” is the least of it yall.
If that was the only thing in Zimmerman’s statement that stinks to high heaven, maybe it would make sense to go dumpster diving for any ole cite that supports the possibility of this happening. But it’s not the only that stinks. Zimmerman’s credibility is killed well before we get to this implausible detail of his story, and it’s not even relevant to his guilt.
You are the one that is making up stuff that Martin didn’t do.
It’s a fair cop. I’m also willing to claim right now that Martin didn’t juggle (I just made that up).
“You got me” is improbable and “You’re going to die tonight” is laughable, but the hardcore Zimmies will believe anything, apparently.