Oh those poor people. I hope Trayvon didn’t hurt them too bad.
If I were brave, I’d post a pic of me first thing in the morning. Zimmerman has nothing on my shiners, unfortunately.
If she had cuts and bruises on her nose and forehead, as well as the darkness beneath her eyes, I’d certainly believe it.
It’s more likely he wants to kill whoever kept him up all night.
What are you trying to prove here? We all know that there’s several ways on can get dark markings beneath ones eyes. It’s reasonable to assume that someone with a broken nose and other facial injuries has bruising, not tiredness or some congenital condition.
Or are you going to keep pretending that his nose wasn’t broken, and that all the other cuts and bruises are tricks of the light?
I never said that Zimmerman had no black eyes. The only reason we’re on this tangent is because someone has insisted on saying there is photographic evidence showing these black eyes. My position is that there is not.
The PA very well might have thought he saw some bruising on Z’s face, but as monstro has astutely pointed out, this is contradicted by both Serino and Zimmerman. If this doesn’t bother you, fine. But it’s just one more data point against Zimmerman claim of serious injury.
A black eye remarkable enough to indicate trauma worth killing someone over should be more blatant that the shit Zimmerman has going on in his pics. That’s the problem with making the basis of his self-defense claims on his injuries.
There is absolutely no proof that he had a broken nose. If they put the PA on the stand, she is not going to say “Yeah, he had a broken nose.” ywtf has explained this to Terr and he chooses to ignore it because it messes up the nice, neat narrative ya’ll have swallowed.
I’m saying you–your side–needs to stop focusing so much on injuries. In no one’s universe are Zimmerman’s injuries serious. So stop with this.
If Zimmerman is resting his case on the severity of his injuries, he loses right out the gates. Because he did everything possible to show he was NOT seriously injured. Including telling someone not to call an ambulance, declining immediate medical treatment, and allowing himself to be seen by a PA instead of an MD. Oh yes, and only seeking medical treatment so he could be excused from work.
If Zimmerman is resting his case on verbal threats made to his life, then his injuries are totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if Martin whaled on him or not. Simply saying, “Tonight you’re gonna die” and reaching for the gun is sufficient for Zimmerman to make a case for self-defense.
This is the argumentation you guys should be asserting–that Zimmerman was rightfully afraid because Martin said “Tonight you’re gonna die” and reached for his gun. But what are you choosing to do instead? You’re focusing on things that the physical evidence and common sense belie! Zimmerman should be glad that ya’ll aren’t on his dream team. Because he would most certainly lose if he goes into that courtroom talking about the severity of his injuries, and how having two cuts on the back of the head justifies killing someone.
Wouldn’t it bother you that you’re defending someone who is untrustworthy, though? Let’s say Zimmerman came on national TV tonight and said, “You know what, guys? I was wrong about my head being slammed. I actually fell against the sprinkler but in the fog of battle, I thought I was being slammed against the sidewalk. But he did do everything else I said he did. I promise!” How would your participation in this thread change?
And maybe if I were a physician’s assistant, and my patient had told me he had gotten into a bad fight, I might mistake normal dark circles under the eyes for bruises. Especially if he was playing up pain and saying, “That thug musta broken my nose!”
So thanks for illustrating how mistakes can be made just by changing the picture a little. If the girl in the photo had a couple of nicks on her face, you’d assume she had blackened eyes. Maybe without even asking her if her eyes hurt.
There is evidence that Zimmerman had black eyes and some evidence that he did not–including his own words, which IMHO should carry the most weight. What does that tell me? That black eyes should be taken off the table.
Broken nose? That’s equivocal too.
With all this vagueness, I wouldn’t rest any case on Zimmerman’s injuries. Especially a murder case.
And once again, you’re working under a misapprehension that Zimmerman has to prove himself innocent.
Sigh. He had a broken nose, according to the medical report and the police report. He didn’t have a broken nose, according to a couple of random people on the internet who have spent the last 6 months desperately searching for ways to show he’s guilty, in defiance of all evidence and common sense.
Who should I believe? That’s not a conundrum that will keep me awake.
And no, it won’t bother me if I’m defending someone who’s untrustworthy. It won’t even bother me if I’m defending someone who’s probably, but not provably, guilty, as in neither circumstance should they be found guilty, or punished in any way.
If there’s any reasonable doubt of his guilt, he must be found not guilty. As I’ve said repeatedly, in this thread and others, deviation from that principle puts everyone in danger. Your, and others, willingness to go from “he might be guilty” to “he must be punished” is fucking disgusting.
And once again, you are showing that you have no sense of morality or appreciation for justice. It has become apparent to me that Zimmerman could confess that everything short of Martin threatening his life was a flat-out lie, and you would still be defending him because no one would be able to disprove that Martin didn’t do this.
And consistent with Zimmerman’s account, the witnesses who saw the fight, the evidence of Zimmerman’s wounds, etc…
That last absolutely is justice. You have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, he murdered him. If you can’t prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, you cannot, morally or justly, convict him of murder.
I would like justice for the victim of the crime in this instance. Sadly, it looks like he will be harassed for the rest of his life, and he’s already been arrested and jailed, because someone attacked him. Not much justice there.
The report says he “likely” had a broken nose. But no x-rays were taken, and the PA was obviously not that bothered to confirm one way or the other. It sounds like a “better safe than sorry” ruling more than anything else.
But you just keep believing that he had a broken nose. It doesn’t mean a damn thing to his case, but it obviously brings you comfort for some reason.
If you believe the medical report, then you must believe that the nose wasn’t definitively broken. But as I said, believe whatever it is you want to. You seem resistant to common sense, so I don’t know why the truth in a medical report should sway you.
I’m trying to figure out what it would take for you to think that Zimmerman was guilty. If we had survelliance footage of Zimmerman rolling on top of Martin, holding him down, right before Martin rolled on top of him and gave him a good punch or two, would that do it to your opinion? Without any audio, we would still lack proof that Martin DIDN’T threaten his life. Should Zimmerman still get to walk in this case?
If we had footage of Martin trying to get away from Zimmerman at the beginning of the encounter, with Zimmerman chasing after him, would that do it to your cold, dispassionate position? If Zimmerman says, “Well, maybe Martin didn’t reach for the gun. I might have imagined that part,” it wouldn’t bother you that you’ve spent all this time and energy defending a lying murderer? Really? All this is to you is an exercise in pointing out…exactly what? That some crimes can’t be proven 100%, and that’s just the price we pay for civilization?
Why is being this dispassionate and cold preferable to actually caring that a murderer–if that’s indeed what Zimmerman is–be found guilty by whatever legal means is necessary? If I knew that Zimmerman was guilty, it wouldn’t please me if he got off on a technicality. And it sounds like this would be okey-dokey to you, since in the end it’s all about scoring points. If true, wow.
Detective : Suspect, we know you were the one who killed the little old lady.
Suspect: How’s that?
Detective: Because we have proof that you were in the little old lady’s house.
Suspect: Yeah? I was just visiting. I’m a Jehovah’s Witness and we was just talking about the Lord.
Detective: We also found her purse in your possession.
Suspect: So what? She gave it to me as a present. You can’t prove I stole it.
Detective: And we also have this gun with your prints on it. It was the gun that shot her.
Suspect: So what? It’s my gun, and I let her hold it. How was I to know she was suicidal? You can’t disprove this.
Detective: So if all this is true, why did you lie about knowing her?
Suspect: Because I figured if I told the truth, you’d think I was a murderer.
Steophan, are you telling me that you’d be fine with a justice system that let Suspect walk free just because we can’t prove he did anything with 100% certainty? Don’t talk to me about Florida’s SYG law or any other bullshit. From a strict moral position, are you saying that you’re fine with the reasoning the suspect gives the detective in the above scenario?
Go read the cite again. It says he had a broken nose. Terr’s posted it plenty of times, so you’ve no excuse for not having read it.
It means he’d received injury that rises to the level that, if he were in reasonable fear of it, he would have been entitled to use lethal force.
The medical report, the police report, Zimmerman’s statement, the statements of people who saw him in the days after, and the photos all show a broken nose.
The only thing that doesn’t is random people on the internet.
In that case, if Martin broke his nose, Zimmerman would have been entitled to shoot him if Martin remained on top of him. Read the law, understand it, and realise what it means. If you want to say the law is stupid, go for it. But don’t claim we should ignore it.
If we had footage of Martin trying to get away from Zimmerman at the beginning of the encounter, with Zimmerman chasing after him, would that do it to your cold, dispassionate position? If Zimmerman says, “Well, maybe Martin didn’t reach for the gun. I might have imagined that part,” it wouldn’t bother you that you’ve spent all this time and energy defending a lying murderer? Really?
[/quote]
There’s still, in this scenario, nothing to show he’s a murderer. Martin still seriously injured him, and still prevented him getting away. Still justified self defence.
Not just that, but it’s a big part of it. I happen to believe Zimmerman is factually innocent, but if I believed he was guilty, but it couldn’t be proved, I would still fully support him being found not guilty, and not being punished. This, I believe, is Bricker’s position, and an admirable one.
Because the legal system is, and should be, extremely biased towards the defendant. The power to inflict punishment up to and including death is one that absolutely must only be exercised when there is no doubt it’s justified. What I want is the facts of the case to be dispassionately analysed, and the correct conclusion drawn from them. This conclusion can be one of two things - Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder of Martin, or he is not. These are the only conclusions that should be drawn - no probably, no maybe, no hanging cloud of suspicion, no technicalities.
So yes, it would be absolutely “okey-dokey” to me.
I do in fact care that a murderer be found guilty by whatever legal means necessary - of course, the only legal means to do so is to prove them guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of every element of the crime they are charged with, as defined in the laws of the jurisdiction they are charged in.
Beyond reasonable doubt =! 100% certainty.
The standard isn’t 100% certainty, it’s beyond reasonable doubt. And yes, if his story checked out - that is, he was a Jehovah’s witness, she’d been treated for depression, she’d had a history of giving her possessions away, it’s entirely possible his story could check out.
To determine the truth, we would need to examine the whole scenario, not just a few lines of badly-written dialogue, and examine whether his story is consistent with the physical evidence and the witness statements. If it is, then he should certainly go free - because there is reason to doubt his guilt. This is how the system should, and must, work.
Why do you want to imprison or execute people who may well not be guilty?
I don’t want any innocent people going to jail.
I only want you to stop pretending that you’re being more rational about this than I am.
I doubt I could be less rational about this than you whilst still writing coherent sentences.
He was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, but he had stopped attending church years ago. He had, however, just told his girlfriend he considered going back.
The woman had a history of dysthymia, but all her friends says she was getting ready to go to Vegas. She had just bought a condo. She had just made an appointment to get her nails done. Yet, the day before witnesses did observe her crying at a wedding.
She was a philanthropist and had been known to give strangers money. But never her pocket book, which contained rather sentimental objects in addition to money.
He could still be telling the truth, though. Just like Zimmerman could still be telling the truth about having his head slammed into the sidewalk, even though his wounds don’t support this and he can’t tell us how his head was slammed and there are no witnesses and his supposed screams don’t jibe with repetitive slamming (or smothering, for that matter)).
Just like if a surveillance video showed Zimmerman sitting on top of Martin, it wouldn’t disprove his claim that Martin had threatened his life.
As you say, you look at the whole picture. You use the whole picture to determine someone’s credibility.
The whole picture does not make Zimmerman look very credible.
Zimmerman said he feared for his life. That involved a beating over a period of time which included facial trauma, the repeated slamming of his head into concrete, the covering of his mouth and finally, a struggle for his gun.
Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because his nose was broken. That was a stipulation put forth by Bricker that a broken nose is cause for self defense. It is not the focus of the case.
The beating itself will stand as cause for self defense. The duration of the beating was partially documented on a 911 phone call along with other witnesses. The injuries of the beating are documented. There is little doubt the beating took place. The Jury will be walked through the events in real time, while listening to the screams on the call and shown pictures of Zimmerman immediately after it happened.
the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person who was pummeled non-stop, getting his head smashed into concrete and screaming for help, was not in fear for his life.
Yes, if I had only phrased the question in the way you quoted it then it would be a fallacy. Your selective presentation of my question is the only applicable fallacy. I’ve asked you a clear, open-ended question and it stands on its own, independent of the exchange you are referring to.
There is no red herring- or attempt to distract from the main issue- on my part. You believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. This excludes the idea that he was acting out of a perceived need to defend himself. Bricker indicated that Zimmerman may have shot Trayvon because he panicked, perhaps overreacting to a self-defense situation. Unless I’m mistaken, what Bricker suggests happened is not something he believes to be consistent with a murder charge.
I ask you what you believe his motivation to be and, in dramatic fashion, you’ve declined to answer it a couple of times now. So, I’ll just move on. And maybe wait until you’ve had a chance to displace some of your anger on one of your MMA sparring partners.