Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[betenoire39]

@you_with_the_face

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.

you with the face, stop engaging them on this–they won’t listen.

This is a prime example of what I was talking about earlier: people taking their straw man and running with it.

I was paying attention and know what you said and you made an excellent rebuttal to that poster. He asked for one thing, you disproved it brilliantly, he then shifted the topic with a red herring.

Classic BS. Now the rest of them are following.

That’s how it works with some posters: You provide a direct rebuttal, they ignore it throw a red herring. Simple.

I know you are correct you with the face, and I have your back ;).

[Hbns]

@betenoire39

Classic BS. Now the rest of them are following.

That’s how it works with some posters: You provide a direct rebuttal, they ignore it throw a red herring. Simple.

I know you are correct you with the face, and I have your back ;).

I know you are new here so I’ll point out to you that this forum IMHO = In My Humble Opinion. If you are looking for strict adherence to the rules of debate, or discussion of a strictly factual nature you might want to go over to the Great Debates forum.

Me I like it here because I can air my hunch that Zimmerman killed Martin in a moment of panic and irrational thought that Martin would get away. Pretty sure I will be disappointed in the trial outcome as I don’t share Monstro’s or YwtF’s optimissim in the strength of the prosecutions case.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

you with the face, stop engaging them on this–they won’t listen.

This is a prime example of what I was talking about earlier: people taking their straw man and running with it.

I was paying attention and know what you said and you made an excellent rebuttal to that poster. He asked for one thing, you disproved it brilliantly, he then shifted the topic with a red herring.

Classic BS. Now the rest of them are following.

That’s how it works with some posters: You provide a direct rebuttal, they ignore it throw a red herring. Simple.

I know you are correct you with the face, and I have your back ;).

She attempted to prove that Zimmerman wasn’t bruised by linking to several pictures of him with black eyes and facial trauma. That’s not so much a rebuttal as an admission of defeat and/or insanity.

Do you understand that, for Zimmerman to be guilty of murder, it will have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of death or serious injury when he shot Martin? If so, can you explain how pictures of Zimmerman with obvious facial trauma help prove that?

[Steophan]

@monstro

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.

The whole picture shows plenty of reasons to doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin. Just as, in your hypothetical, there are reasons to doubt the suspect murdered the little old lady. In both cases, on the information available, the only just and moral thing to do, as a juror or as a commentator, is to pronounce them not guilty of murder.

[Shodan]

@betenoire39

That’s how it works with some posters: You provide a direct rebuttal, they ignore it throw a red herring. Simple.

And you know how it works with other posters? They make ridiculous and outrageous claims, say that they are going to provide cites, and then they never do.

Regards,
Shodan

[betenoire39]

@Shodan

And you know how it works with other posters? They make ridiculous and outrageous claims, say that they are going to provide cites, and then they never do.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan,

For the second time, please be patient while I comb through the tapes so I can get the EXACT frames (or times since this is youtube) when he said what he says.

Thank you Shodan.

[Shodan]

@betenoire39

Shodan,

For the second time, please be patient while I comb through the tapes so I can get the EXACT frames (or times since this is youtube) when he said what he says.

Thank you Shodan.

What you need to produce is evidence that we should believe what Zimmerman says. I have explained this more than once - we should believe whatever is backed up by evidence.

If you are going to claim that Zimmerman claims he hit his head on a dog sign, that is not evidence (by your standards). You need independent, corroborative evidence, as we have for all the other elements of the case that I am prepared to accept.

If you are going to accuse others of believing things just because Zimmerman said so, then you had better not believe anything just because Zimmerman said so.

You believe Zimmerman used a throw to take Martin to the ground, instead of them winding up on the ground because Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, straddled him, and bashed his head against the ground (all of which is backed up by independent evidence). You are going to have to produce some kind of independent evidence that Zimmerman used a throw.

You believe he hit his head on a dog sign or a sprinkler box. You are going to have to produce some kind of independent evidence that this is the case. You apparently believe that Zimmerman should have left his DNA all over everything he touched, and that absence of such DNA is proof of something. Okay - either produce a cite of blood on a dog sign or a sprinkler box, or explain why Zimmerman gashed his head, twice, without leaving a sign of it.

You believe Zimmerman did not act alone. Dee Dee’s testimony (if you believe her), “Jon”‘s testimony, all of the other witnesses’ testimony, all refer to exactly two people being involved - Zimmerman and Martin. You are going to have to produce some kind of independent evidence that someone else was involved.

Quit stalling. If you have independent evidence apart from what Zimmerman says, trot it out. If you don’t, then explain why you are picking and choosing what you believe of his testimony, based on nothing at all.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Steophan

She attempted to prove that Zimmerman wasn’t bruised by linking to several pictures of him with black eyes and facial trauma. That’s not so much a rebuttal as an admission of defeat and/or insanity.

Do you understand that, for Zimmerman to be guilty of murder, it will have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of death or serious injury when he shot Martin? If so, can you explain how pictures of Zimmerman with obvious facial trauma help prove that?

I have to say, if I were a jury member and saw those pictures of Zimmerman’s face, I would not be thinking “serious bodily injury.” The medical report might convince me; the photos, not so much.

Now, maybe Zimmerman’s testimony would convince me he was in fear of serious bodily injury – those photos don’t convince me he sustained serious bodily injury.

[Steophan]

@Bricker

I have to say, if I were a jury member and saw those pictures of Zimmerman’s face, I would not be thinking “serious bodily injury.” The medical report might convince me; the photos, not so much.

Now, maybe Zimmerman’s testimony would convince me he was in fear of serious bodily injury – those photos don’t convince me he sustained serious bodily injury.

Would you use those photos to attempt to prove that he had not sustained serious injury? That’s what has been attempted here.

They are consistent with a broken nose, although not proof of one, and earlier in this thread it was mentioned that a broken nose can count as serious bodily harm. The only cite I’ve found for this is California law, and Florida doesn’t explicitly define its requirement beyond “great bodily harm”.

Do you have any knowledge of case law in Florida that could decide this?

[Bricker]

@Steophan

Would you use those photos to attempt to prove that he had not sustained serious injury? That’s what has been attempted here.

They are consistent with a broken nose, although not proof of one, and earlier in this thread it was mentioned that a broken nose can count as serious bodily harm. The only cite I’ve found for this is California law, and Florida doesn’t explicitly define its requirement beyond “great bodily harm”.

Do you have any knowledge of case law in Florida that could decide this?

Yes, and I’ve posted it a couple of times. There’s a Florida case that explicitly lists a broken nose as serious bodily harm. But that does not mean a broken nose is automatically serious bodily injury.

[Magiver]

@Hbns

Me I like it here because I can air my hunch that Zimmerman killed Martin in a moment of panic and irrational thought that Martin would get away. Pretty sure I will be disappointed in the trial outcome as I don’t share Monstro’s or YwtF’s optimissim in the strength of the prosecutions case.

And he tried to keep him from getting away by pulling him on top and getting a beating from him?

You completely ignore the idea that Martin had a head start on Zimmerman and at least 2 minutes of additional time to go home which was his original destination. The fight started in the same area Zimmerman was in when he left his truck. There is virtually no rational reason for Martin to be at this location. We know that Martin initiated the conversation. He starts the events that unfolded and there is no rational explanation for the injuries incurred by Zimmerman other than Martin beating him.

[Magiver]

@Bricker

I have to say, if I were a jury member and saw those pictures of Zimmerman’s face, I would not be thinking “serious bodily injury.” The medical report might convince me; the photos, not so much.

Now, maybe Zimmerman’s testimony would convince me he was in fear of serious bodily injury – those photos don’t convince me he sustained serious bodily injury.

The injuries documented medically and the pictures of his face and back of head all coincide with his account.

[Steophan]

@Bricker

Yes, and I’ve posted it a couple of times. There’s a Florida case that explicitly lists a broken nose as serious bodily harm. But that does not mean a broken nose is automatically serious bodily injury.

Under what circumstances is it considered serious bodily injury?

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

Under what circumstances is it considered serious bodily injury?

When it’s bad enough to impair breathing, disfigure the face if left untreated, and medically requires resetting of the bone to ensure return to function

Whatever Zimmerman had, it didn’t affect his breathing; the video shows him breathing out of his nose. It didn’t bleed profusely (or else it would have still been bleeding at the police station…he didn’t even have tissue plugged in his nose on his pictures) and it didn’t cause deviation of the septum. The EMT and PA didn’t even bandage it.

To insist on saying he was seriously injured when he didn’t even go to the ER makes you look like a textbook case in delusion.

[monstro]

From Wellness Library | Cigna

Nose injuries often occur during play, sports, accidents, fights, and falls. Pain, swelling, and bruising are common, even with minor injuries. Home treatment can usually help relieve your symptoms.

It may be hard to tell if your nose is broken. Swelling can make your nose look crooked even if it is not broken. When the swelling goes down after a few days, it is easier to tell if your nose is really crooked. Most doctors prefer to check an injured nose soon after the swelling has gone down. Sometimes, testing may be needed, such as an X-ray or computed tomography (CT) scan of the head, if other facial injuries or fractures are suspected.

Seriousness of a nose injury

Whether or not your nose is broken, a nose injury is more serious when:

You have a nosebleed that you can't stop. See how to stop a nosebleedClick here to see an illustration..
The skin of your nose is cut or punctured, especially if you think your nose may be broken. This increases your risk of infection.
A blood clot forms in the tissue that separates the nostrils (septum). This can create a hole (perforation) in the septum or cause the bridge of the nose to collapse (saddle nose deformity).
You think the injury may have been caused by abuse. Physical abuse often causes bruises, burns, fractures, head injuries, and other injuries. If you suspect abuse, seek help. You can call a local child or adult protective services agency, the police, a spiritual adviser, or a health professional such as a doctor, nurse, or counselor.
You have persistent drainage from one or both nostrils. This may be caused by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) draining from the brain into the nose (CSF rhinorrhea) and can occur after a head injury or after surgery on the nose or ears. There is a chance you may get a CSF infection, such as meningitis, which can affect the nervous system and be life-threatening. 

Complications of a broken nose

Most broken noses heal without problems. When problems develop, they can include:

A change in the size or shape of the nose, or a crooked or bent nose. Multiple nose injuries, especially during childhood, increase the risk of damage to the tissues and structures in the nose. This can cause long-term problems.
Trouble breathing or nasal stuffiness.
An infection of the nose, sinusesClick here to see an illustration., or bones in the face.
An abnormality in the tissue that separates the nostrils (deviated nasal septumClick here to see an illustration.).
A hole (perforation) in the septum.
Severe infection, such as meningitis or a brain abscess, or other CSF infection. 

Treatment

Treatment of a simple fracture, when the bone is still in place, usually includes pain medicine and nasal decongestants. You may or may not need a nasal splint.

If your nose is broken and out of place, it may need to be set. Most doctors like to wait for any swelling to go down before setting a broken nose. Most swelling goes down after 2 or 3 days but may take as long as 7 to 14 days. After the nose is set, nasal packing may be inserted and a splint may be applied. You may be given antibiotics to help prevent infection if packing is used. Your doctor may want to recheck your nose and remove the packing in 2 to 3 days.

Nothing in there about all broken noses being serious. And Zimmerman did not have any of those signs listed. He didn’t even get a splint. As far as we know, he didn’t even go back to have his nose rechecked.

[Magiver]

@monstro

Nothing in there about all broken noses being serious. And Zimmerman did not have any of those signs listed. He didn’t even get a splint. As far as we know, he didn’t even go back to have his nose rechecked.

The seriousness is the beating itself, not individual injuries. The broken nose is just an indicator that the beating took place as are the other injuries. You’re arguing a legal point put forth by Bricker that singularly a broken nose allows for self defense. Zimmerman didn’t shoot him when first attacked nor is he claiming he shot him because of a broken nose.

[Bricker]

@Steophan

Under what circumstances is it considered serious bodily injury?

@you_with_the_face

When it’s bad enough to impair breathing, disfigure the face if left untreated, and medically requires resetting of the bone to ensure return to function.

From a legal standpoint, the answer is: if a jury finds that serious bodily injury occurred, and the evidence they had to rely upon is that the victim suffered a broken nose, that is legally sufficient evidence and the jury’s verdict will be upheld on appeal.

In other words, a broken nose is legally enough to sustain “serious bodily injury,” but there is no requirement that every broken nose be automatically considered serious bodily injury.

Does that make sense?

[Steophan]

@Bricker

From a legal standpoint, the answer is: if a jury finds that serious bodily injury occurred, and the evidence they had to rely upon is that the victim suffered a broken nose, that is legally sufficient evidence and the jury’s verdict will be upheld on appeal.

In other words, a broken nose is legally enough to sustain “serious bodily injury,” but there is no requirement that every broken nose be automatically considered serious bodily injury.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but doesn’t fully answer the question. What I’d like to know is under what circumstances, if any, juries have found this. I wouldn’t have a clue how to find this out, but if you or anyone else does, I’d like to know.

As Magiver points out, though, focussing just on the broken nose and not the totality of the injuries is missing the point somewhat.

[monstro]

@Steophan

As Magiver points out, though, focussing just on the broken nose and not the totality of the injuries is missing the point somewhat.

What is the totality that we’re somehow missing?

The suspected broken nose is the most serious of his injuries. He had two cuts on the back of his head that did not require stitches, and was bandaged (rather clumsily) by his girlfriend. And he had some very short-lived bruises on his face and lower back (remember, he denied having bruises just 2 days after the fight). He probably spent no more than 30-45 minutes being treated for all this “totality”.

If it’s up to the jury to decide if Zimmerman was severely beaten, his lawyer is going to have a heck of a job convincing them of this. If someone is seriously injured, I would expect them to at least spend a day laid up in bed. But we have footage of Zimmerman reenacting his battle royale the very next day, and he looks pretty damn spry. All the prosecution has to do is show that footage, the EMT’s notes, the police station photographs, and the pretty sparse findings on the medical report to convince the jury that he was only mildly injured. What do you think the defense could possibly show that would stack up against that?

[Steophan]

@monstro

If it’s up to the jury to decide if Zimmerman was severely beaten, his lawyer is going to have a heck of a job convincing them of this.

It’s up to the prosecution to prove he wasn’t in fear of serious injury. Zimmerman’s lawyer has to prove, as you’ve been reminded what seems like a thousand times, absolutely fuck all.

So, Zimmerman’s lawyer can, I assume, say that Zimmerman had a broken nose, broken noses can be considered serious injury, Zimmerman was under continued attack after suffering the injury, and was therefore in reasonable fear of serious injury. It would be up to the prosecution to show this to be false, beyond reasonable doubt. It’s for them to convince the jury he wasn’t severely beaten, not vice versa.