Since we’re all just dialogging, here, I would like to respond.
Zimmerman did not set out to kill Martin. The death, in my opinion, was a result of carelessness on Zimmerman’s part, panic when carrying a gun.
Was he panicking because he was fearing for his life? Or was it a completely out-of-the blue panic attack?
No. Have you ever been in a serious fight? The combination of adrenaline and head trauma will make any sort of detailed recollection extremely difficult. One can’t expect a literal, second by second, retelling of the encounter - not that that’s ever expected in any circumstances, and is a pretty sure sign that someone’s made up a story if it is there.
What needs to be done is to compare Zimmerman’s story, in broad strokes, to the witness and physical evidence. That’s what we’ve spent the last several months doing in this thread, and none of it show him committing any crime.
If someone’s been repeatedly bashed around the head, it’s entirely reasonable to expect them to remember the events leading up to the fight, and who started it, and other major events, but entirely unreasonable to expect them to remember the exact sequence of events during the fight.
Why are there crickets about the fact he had no bruises when he should have? Am I going to get condescending lecture about how it’s clear I’ve never had a bruise before? I hope not. I’ve got a bruise on my leg that I’ve had for two weeks. It is just now starting fade.
Or, maybe I just heard Zimmerman wrong. He said “no” when the poor guy meant “yes”. Bad monstro for parsing words.
Can you provide proof that he had a broken nose? No, you can’t. Because he was never diagnosed with one. The most he was told was that he had a “likely” broken nose. Zimmerman wants to bank on this tentative assessment, but the prosecution will tear him up on this when they point out his failure to seek a definitive diagnosis from an ENT, as per the PA’s recommendation.
The two, very small lacerations on the back of his head could have been come from anything. Rolling around on the ground in the dark–near a tree, a sprinkler hose, a metal sign–puts one at risk of all sorts of injuries. There is no reason we should assume they were inflicted by someone else, especially when there is no physical evidence to back this up.
To believe the existence of Zimmerman’s injuries is proof that Martin beat him makes as much sense as assuming that a kid with a skinned knee can only be a victim of abuse.
There is photographic evidence of his bruises. Actual, physical proof of them. If you claim he didn’t have bruises, you are demonstrably wrong.
No there isn’t.
Still waiting for those cites.
Regards,
Shodan
Bingo.
Zimmerman was hurt, therefore Martin did x, y and z (also WHEN Zimmerman said he did).
When people are challenged on this, and given a possible and REASONABLE alternative, the response is: Oh you don’t have evidence or you’re jumping the gun or you’re crazy.
When asked a simple question (and REASONABLE one) about why Martin had so little blood on him after “viciously pounding him into the pavement”, I get an answer like “Well everyone doesn’t gush out blood” (WTF???). Not that that answers ANYTHING, but oh well.
I even have this one poster ranting and raving some nonsense at me.
Some are very black and white thinkers. It’s either one or the other–very linear thinking, and that’s frustrating me and you.
Some are also being disingenuous and feeding red herrings when there is something they don’t want to answer.
Another thing that is completely BIZARRE to me is how some posters repeat some of the same phrases Zimmerman uses:
“pounded his head into the pavement”
“doubled back”
They use this to craft their arguments. I don’t get it. For me, it’s not going to get to the point where I am repeating the same phrases that an accused killer (and I said accused) uses.
When I use these phrases, I put them in quotation marks, because I am QUOTING him. Other posters don’t do that, and again, that is very bizarre.
Just an observation.
I think there are several different questions in play.
If you were to ask me what I think happened, I’d say one thing.
If you were to ask me what I believe the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, I’d answer differently.
In order to convict Zimmerman, the state of Florida must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every element of the crime with which he’s charged, and disprove, again beyond a reasonable doubt, his claim of self-defense.
In order to discuss what probably happened, it’s only necessary to offer a theory and some supporting evidence.
Perhaps the discontinuity you’re seeing comes from that chasm between “What really happened?” and “What can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?”
^^^^^
Thank you for a DIRECT answer to my comment.
BTW, do you have a comment on the rest of my post?
I forgot to address the part in bold.
It is not surprising to me that Martin had very few injuries on his body during this scuffle. This is what you’d exactly expect to see if the kid was in flight mode rather than fight mode.
Have you ever tried to restrain a cat that really, really didn’t want you holding it down? Between you and the cat, which one of yall will most likely will walk away bleeding? It’s not going to be the cat.
It can’t be said enough: when Zimmerman admitted to getting on top of Martin and restraining his arms after he shot the kid, he confirmed his true intent that night. Which was to detain Martin so that he could be apprehended by the cops. His own safety was never in the forefront of his mind, because if it were he would have high-tailed it out of there as soon as the kid said “okay you got it”. (And he would have never gotten out of his truck, either.)
Martin was the cat. Zimmerman was the psycho trying to restrain him. Any injuries he sustained from doing that were due to his own making.
Also Bricker, I think some of the defenders of Zimmerman have a narrative and a version of events that they feel shouldn’t be challenged. That’s the problem I have. Some of them don’t want to look at their theories or any criticism.
One of the things that’s important to me is self-criticism.
I am open to that.
Sometimes I play along with the theory and try to argue that EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE THEN _____, to try to allude that maybe this didn’t happen.
This what drives me crazy.
They use Zimmerman’s phrases as if they are their own.
Ok, so he “pounded him into the pavement”, where’s the physical evidence that verifies this? Where’s the blood on Martin? I was trying to explain to a couple posters that if there was a tussle and Zimmerman was bleeding (WHEN HE SAID HE SUSTAINED THE INJURY), more blood would have been on Martin. I used myself as an example. Yet I get these nonsensical responses.
Answer: “Oh, not everyone has to get blood on them” and other BS.
It’s very coincidental that they VERY THING THAT COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THESE INJURIES was refused–an immediate trip to the hospital and some scans.
Their answer: Doctors are expensive.
Then you have some posters going off on you, as I was RUDELY greeted by this **emeraldia ** character ranting and raving and throwing out non-sequiturs left and right.
Then to top it off, you have the general argument that EVEN THOUGH Zimmerman pursued him (and Martin was DOING NOTHING), Zimmerman didn’t do anything illegal.
Then you have some say that Zimmerman didn’t pursue him at all (WTF???)
This is the problem I am having and again, and even I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt.
It just gets to the point where you have to say: look, this just isn’t adding up–EVEN IF YOU EXCEPT HIS VERSION OF EVENTS.
No – because it’s not clear to me whether you want to simply debate what probably happened or discuss the case from the perspective of a criminal trial and the requisite proofs therein.
For example, you say, “Another thing that is completely BIZARRE to me is how some posters repeat some of the same phrases Zimmerman uses: ‘pounded his head into the pavement.’”
If we’re talking about the criminal trial, then it’s not bizarre at all; the phrase is likely to be part of the defense’s case-in-chief and something the prosecution will need to address.
But if we’re just discussing what we feel happened, then yes, it’s kind of weird that people on one side seem to uncritically accept Zimmerman’s version of events.
See what I mean?
Agreed. If you’ll look back through this thread you’ll see I’ve been attacked by both pro- and anti-Zimmerman posters at different times.
I’m most comfortable in these discussions taking a set of hypothetical facts and explaining what they mean under the law.
So I’ll often say, “If Zimmerman did thus-and-so, then…” I’m willing to entertain almost any set of facts. “If Zimmerman attempted to physically restrain Martin first, then…” and “If Martin struck Zimmerman first…” are both perfectly fruitful lines of discussion. I have a general belief that Zimmerman’s version is not the Perfect Truth, but I am willing to accept it, discount it, or anything in between.
Are you implying that the posters (who I take issue with) are arguing from the standpoint of the defense?
Again, thank you for your DIRECT answers (and lack of red herrings and subtle ad hominems).
You seem very honest.
That’s the most charitable explanation, anyway. 
“Let be be finale of seem.”
But also Bricker, wouldn’t the jury (and prosecution) want to try to piece together “what actually happened”?
My good sense tells me Zimmerman is lying. This is my conclusion after watching all of the police interviews and hearing him speak (and I had a poster tell me that I should only take certain things he said WTF???).
I assume the prosecution will try to establish he is not being truthful. I am sure the jury will want to know too.
LOL.
The “honesty” part came from your answers and you **directly **responding to my concerns.
Red Herrings (to me) are a sign of people lying or hiding something.
He likely begin moving again after the dispatcher call, since it’s unlikely he would still be near the T several minutes later, near where Martin’s body was found. They couldn’t have both stopped moving during that time.