Z justified his response by saying that M declared an intention to kill Z and then M reached for the means to carry out that threat–Z’s gun.
It’s the int4rwebz who’re using Z’s injuries to justify the shooting.
Why should I believe that? Zimmerman lacks credibility and there is no physical evidence linking Martin to his injuries. There is no reason I should believe that Martin did anything to Zimmerman when the only person making that claim is a liar. His injuries are so mild he very well could have injured himself during the conflict.
That’s not how the process works.
Zimmerman has claimed that his face was covered in blood caused by a gushing nose and head injuries (he’s in fact said he was blinded by blood during the head slamming).
He also has claimed that Martin had his hand planted on top of this gushing nose in an attempt to smother him.
Not only is there no plausible way the kid could have managed this without contaminating himself with Zimmerman’s blood, there is no rule that says we have to interpret the lack of blood evidence on Martin’s hands in a manner that exculpates Zimmerman.
Mental gymnastics do not belong in the court room, sorry. The jury is perfectly entitled to see the truck-sized discrepancy between the physical evidence and Zimmerman’s story as evidence towards his lack of credibility. Furthermore, the evidence allows the inference that Martin never even touched Zimmerman, let alone beat him, which automatically puts into question the idea that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of him.
But remember his head was supposedly slammed repeatedly. If this happened, we would not expect blood to only be confined to his the nose.
Zimmerman never mentioned the sensation that he was drowning in his own blood. This is just one more element of the story that we have to imagine for him if we accept his story. I’ve had many a-nose bleed in my life, and if I were on my back with blood pooling in my throat, while being smothered at the same time, there is no way I would gloss over that.
Perhaps he wasn’t dripping all that much because the blood on his head had pretty much dried in its tracks already. These injuries were mild. If they’d had been incurred at the beginning of the fight, the bleeding might have stopped by the time the gun went off.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this picalready, but notice how there’s a trickle line that goes forward towards his ear, but none going back. Weird isnt it? Looking at it, you’d think he’d spent most of the conflict bent over Martin, not flat on his back. Here’s anotherpic showing the blood flowing from his ear all the way to his beard.
Good point. Thanks.
Hadn’t. Thanks. Those are just weird.
Assuming the jury also says ‘wtf, that doesn’t make sense’ - doesn’t really matter.
There’s plenty about the case that will present doubt in the minds of the jury that Zimmerman was not defending himself.
Why do you think such a preposterous thing?
Maybe you can elicit a decent response to this…I brought this up several times and failed.
I really am curious about what they will say.
Yup–good catch.
Also, Zimmerman mentioned a sign in one of the interviews. He said he couldn’t remember if it was the concrete or a sign that he hit his head on.
YES, Zimmerman said this.
I brought this up, then the resident chorus went off on me saying I was making things up and/or lying.
The wound looks like it was made by something sharp…like if I took a piece of metal and scraped it through your skin.
I don’t care if the chorus accuses me of making things up.
Strange wounds indeed!
Zimmerman never said that. It was one of the witnesses who saw the altercation. The SPD asked the witnesses to draw what they saw, and it appears to corroborate the fact Martin was on top.
Wasn’t it claimed by the person who cleaned up Zimmerman’s face at the scene that the blood covered 45% of Zimmerman’s face? That would assume that the complete lower half of his face below the forehead was covered with blood. Hope they took photos.
None of the photos that have come out in discovery support the idea his face was covered with that much blood.
Do you have a link to that drawing? Zimmerman says TM was sat straddling his chest. If TM had simply slipped to the floor with Z while struggling to get away from him, and was then only trying to get back up and pull himself free from Z’s grasp, would you expect to see the same markings on his trousers that he’d have if he’d been knelt astride someone using all his weight to keep them down?
That you, or anyone, including the jury, believe Zimmerman to be lying does not prove him guilty. You are, for some reason, focussing on disproving Zimmerman’s story. What you should be doing is showing evidence that he is guilty. That you, and betenoire and others, keep refusing to do so speaks volumes.
I’d think Z would have remembered and mentioned it by now if they had. Is there a case of negligence to be answered by the SPD in allowing this evidence to be removed before documentation?
When independent evidence seems inconclusive, and the main “evidence” of what is supposed to have happened is testimony from the guy who’s facing a murder rap unless he comes up with a good story, every hole in that story that can be enlarged should be seen as furthering doubt of the entirety of it.
Fine, doubt it. So what? You have to prove it false.
As you so accurately point out, the evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, Zimmerman is not guilty.
If I’m wrong, show the evidence that proves he’s guilty. I’ve no idea how many times I’ve asked people to do that in this thread, but no-one has yet. Which, again to repeat myself, speaks volumes about the people claiming they “know” he’s guilty.
double post
No, we get that. It’s you, dear heart, who can’t seem keep his facts divorced from fantasy and supposition.
You keep acting like the prosecution has to supply an attack against every lil ole thing Zimmerman has claimed. That’s why you choose to frame the lack of evidence of blood on Martin as being inconclusive with respect to the crediblity of Zimmerman’s story. That’s why you choose to interpret the nano scratch on Martin’s finger through the lens of Zimmerman’s narrative, rather than appraise it as a stand alone data point. But this is retarded.
*You keep forgetting that Zimmerman doesn’t even have to take the stand. * You have no reason to assume his claims will even be offered up as testimony as to what happened that night. For all intents and purposes, Zimmerman’s account is completely irrelevant to the prosecution.
The defense is only required to assert self-defense. Which means the prosecution’s task is to prove murder, not self-defense, occurred that night. In that light, these are the facts:
- from the blood/DNA forensics, there is no evidence that Martin laid hands on Zimmerman
When we put all the evidence together starting with the dispatcher call and ending with the gun shot, there is no requirement that we twist ourselves into pretzels to make *anything * fit with Zimmerman’s story. It’s highly likely the jury won’t even know the details of Zimmerman’s story. What is only assured is that they will know the prosecution’s story.
So let me make this even more basic for you . The prosecution will supply the evidence they think makes their case for murder. They will call experts and witnesses to the stand, each offering testimony that hurts Zimmerman in some shape or form. Unless the defense puts Zimmerman on the stand, O’Mara will be stuck in the laughable position of “explaining away” anything that reflects badly on Zimmerman.
The way you frame your arguments make me think you’re believe t the prosecution is the one that has to come up with alternative explanations for the evidence.
No, really, I don’t. I’m arguing the toss on a messageboard in a sub-forum devoted to opinions.
You keep on believing that nobody ever gets convicted without there being some form of rock-solid proof being provided. Completely innocent people have been convicted on less evidence than is available against Z.