No, I need a medical professional or someone experienced in gunshot victims and/or people with brain injuries.
I want to know how common it is for a gunshot victim (with Martin’s type of injury) to have the brain injuries Martin had and if it’s solely related to the shot.
A person can get shot and killed, but that does not mean NOTHING else happened to them.
Why are you refusing to answer the question about what evidence you have for asphyxiation, and why do you come to the conclusion that these brain injuries were not caused by the gunshot, despite there being no mention of any other injuries in the coroner’s report?
1.That’s quite clear. I am bringing up the possibility that they might NOT have been.
What’s wrong with that?
My explanation is that the former is more consistent with my interpretation of the events that night.
The coroner didn’t write that the brain injuries were directly caused by the gunshot. So my question to you is WHY YOU WOULD ASSUME THEY ARE?
Nothing. What’s wrong is that you are claiming it was caused by something you have no evidence for.
Finally, you understand my point. Meningitis is exactly as plausible an explanation as asphyxiation, given the evidence we have.
Then cite the evidence that leads you to believe that Zimmerman asphyxiated Martin. Not evidence that he could have done so, that he did.
I have evidence that Martin could have had meningitis. That is, meningitis is a disease that exists, and he had not been checked for it recently. There’s no evidence that he actually had it, but because you can’t prove he didn’t, it’s reasonable to assume he did.
Does that seem silly to you? It’s exactly the same argument you’re making about asphyxiation.
Respond to what, exactly? We know the brain injuries could have been caused by asphyxiation, the gunshot, or by meningitis. We know there’s only evidence of one of those occurring.
The probability of it occurring from the gunshot is irrelevant, as long as it’s plausible it could have done. It doesn’t function on it’s own as evidence of asphyxiation unless you can prove it couldn’t come from anywhere else - you can’t stack inferences.
Even if you could prove the injuries were caused by asphyxiation, you would still have to prove Zimmerman caused them. There’s still no evidence he asphyxiated Martin.
Also, asphyxiation is a really ugly word, and typing it this often is making my eyes hurt.
But I guess it’s how we read things and see things.
For instance take the following:
After I got home from work, I ate dinner.
A person reading this might assume that the person went home and immediately cooked dinner (at the home) and ate it.
However, this says nothing about exactly when and where it happened. For all we know, the person went home dressed and a few hours later ate dinner, but at a restaurant.
But you probably wouldn’t accept this, as you would ask me for evidence that the person went to a restaurant a few hours after coming home.
Again, when you have such open statements, you are inviting interpretation.
Again, the autopsy did not say that the gunshot caused the brain injuries.
I am just giving people food for thought.
If you want to criticize that, so be it.
That is how I see the things: I question and question.
Ah, so you do have a sense of humor.
You actually made me chuckle.
You asked for a medical expert and you’ve been provided with one. It’s the coroner.
The cause of death is the gunshot wound. It’s listed at the top of the report. The report goes on to describe all external signs of injury. There were none except for the gunshot.
but lets look at the injury. he was shot. That consists of a small piece of metal moving at a high velocity capable of penetrating the body. It happened in and around the heart. Put another way, Martin was struck in the heart with the force of a sledge hammer and that pressure/shock wave was transmitted through the circulatory system to the brain.
Nowhere is there any indication of asphyxiation.
When you have a group of premises, you have to figure out HOW they tie together.
Now, you have three MAJOR injuries listed on Martin’s autopsy.
You have to ask yourself: what is the relationship between the three?
Are they independent of each other? Or is one responsible for the others? Or do they all have one cause?
These are totally legit concerns. I am just raising these questions, because they have to be raised.
It would appear that Magiver and Steophan are in the last camp.
If you wanted to claim that the person went to a restaurant, then yes, I’d want evidence. For the standards of every day conversation, saying that he said earlier he was going, or he goes to a restaurant that day every week, or something like that would do.
If a crime happened at a restaurant, none of those things would suffice.
Questioning is fine, but refusing to accept answers because they are not the answers you hoped for is not. I, too, have been questioning. I’ve repeatedly asked what evidence you have for asphyxiation, and you’ve not answered.
Now, if you have evidence (or a reasonable interpretation of the current evidence) that shows that Zimmerman asphyxiated Martin, and specifically that he did so either before he was punched, or after he shot Martin, that would potentially change my opinion of what happened. But I’m certainly not going to assume something unlikely happened when there’s a far more likely explanation for it, especially when the unlikely assumption is the one required to show guilt.
Here is another $100 bet, betenoire, if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
I say that not only will these brain edema/meninges stuff NOT be decisive in showing Zimmerman’s “guilt”, but it won’t even be brought up in trial as any kind of evidence of wrongdoing. Wanna take this bet?
Do you think that the coroner didn’t consider these questions? Why don’t you accept his conclusion that Martin’s death was caused by the gunshot wound.
Occam says yes.
I am trying to demonstrate that the congestion was not likely caused by the gunshot, based on my initial research. All my research of this type of brain injury led to the subject being smothered or detained in someway–I am getting this consistently.
I think Zimmerman tried to detain Martin and this could possibly be the evidence I need to support this conclusion (aside from the “let go, let go” Deedee heard Martin said over the phone).
I could be wrong (and I am admitting this), so this is why I need a medical professional to chime in.
Why?
Because it is a simple consequence of the lack of oxygen coming to the brain as the result of the heart trauma and the prosecution won’t waste its time and credibility (such as it is) on it. But if you don’t believe that, take the bet.
Why do you not consider the coroner who examined Martin to be a medical professional?
I do.
But again, the ME didn’t say that the gunshot wound caused both of the brain injuries.
Is this to mean that the brain injuries were SOLELY a consequence of the shot, or something else?
Again, this is a legit question.
I see one major injury listed as the cause of death. It was made by a professional whose specific function in this case is to look for signs of injury leading to death.
well the functional link would be the gunshot wound.
The autopsy didn’t say asphyxia caused the brain injuries. It DID say there was no signs of trauma around the head and neck. Given the absence of signs of trauma, a witness, or any other supporting evidence of Zimmerman choking Martin, the logical conclusion is that Martin died of a gunshot wound and any other internal injuries that could be attributed to a gunshot wound were in fact, the result of the gunshot wound.
The job of the Coroner is to investigate the cause of death. He’s the medical expert you asked for. If he saw signs of asphyxia or toe fungus or any other medical issues that caused Martin’s death it would have been noted. It wasn’t. Cause of death, Gunshot Wound of the Chest. It’s been established that Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
The coroner concluded that Martin’s death was due to the gunshot wound. If the brain injuries caused his death, they are therefore due to the gunshot wound. If they are not the cause of his death, they are irrelevant to the question of whether Zimmerman murdered Martin.
What are you trying to prove here? If you think the coroner is wrong about the gunshot wound being the cause of Martin’s death, you need some strong evidence to back it up.