And where was Martin when this picture was taken?
What did your face look like before your parents were born?
I would advise almost any client in Zimmerman’s position to testify – he has no prior criminal record and a claim of self-defense is always strongest when the jury hears from the person who says he had no choice but to attack.
But… because Zimmerman himself is such a loose cannon, my usual no-brainer is weakened greatly.
Still, on balance, the evidentiary considerations still make it necessary. I would prep the hell out if him, put him on, and pray.
Where was Martin’s body when the observation was made.
But you can’t explain how no blood was found on Martin’s hands without inventing a pile of bullshit that has no evidentiary basis.
Yes, and what part of this aren’t you understanding?
Lets say Martin’s body was down on the ground, right where he was shot, when the paramedic noticed all of this blood on Zimmerman’s face.
This matters…why?
O’Rourke actually said that 45% of Zimmerman’s face and head were covered with blood. I have no idea how this measurement was arrived at, or if he had some sort of formula that helped him calculate that X% of the face and Y% of head were bloody and those numbers could be averaged together to come up with 45% of the total surface mass or what.
O’Rourke said that they cleaned up Zimmerman’s face and hands, and did not mention cleaning up Zimmerman’s head. The 45% statement was made later in the interview.
Dimmy derko is quoting one of the neighbors who witnessed part of the confrontation. I’m not familiar with mixed martial arts myself, but apparently the guy meant…raining down punches? At any rate, in a later interview he retracted the comparison somewhat, saying that Martin was on top but he did not see any punching.
Because a significant amount of time has transpired.
Go look at the DNA evidence. The people who keep regurgitating that there was no Zi
mmerman DNA found on Martin’s hands don’t seem to realize that Martin’s hands were never tested. (there’s usually a lot of contamination on a person’s hands anyway, so it’s hard to get an accurate reading). If they had been tested, it would have been listed. They only tested his fingernail, scrappings, (ME2A, ME2B)
Nothing has to be invented. It’s up to the court to prove Zimmerman bled immediately upon being struck in the nose and that it flowed up against gravity and not in.
That would be you’re claim that the lack of evidence is actually evidence. Actual evidence is evidence. The lack of fingerprints on a firearm doesn’t prove that you did or did not handle the firearm. The lack of blood on your knuckles doesn’t mean that you didn’t hit someone hard enough or often enough to cause the other person to bleed.
That fact that blood obeys the laws of gravity is only relevant if we allege that Martin was hovering several inches above Zimmerman waving his hands and chanting “I’m not touching you.” But per Zimmerman’s story, Martin was hitting him multiple times, covering his mouth and nose multiple times, and banging his head against the ground multiple times, all after the first punch which broke his nose.
Punches can cause blood to splatter, a suffocating hand across the nose could create a sort of suction effect. Zimmerman’s head is bleeding, and Martin is grasping his bloodied head in order to beat it. Zimmerman has cuts or scratches on his forehead and the exterior of his nose, much more noticeable marks than his “black eyes.” His has those four odd dots on the tip of his nose (I cannot tell if they are small punctures or splatter).
That’s not a standard I would wish to hold up as ideal.
Glad to see everyone here arguing against the idea that Zimmerman should need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, a murderer to be convicted. You’re no better than lynch mobs.
Do you have a report that states that there was no blood or DNA on Martin’s hands? That would be evidence.
Do you simply not have a report at all on this issue? That isn’t evidence, and therefore the situation needs no explaining.
If it’s the former please show the evidence - and give a cite for the hands, not the fingernails.
Can you give an example of such a conviction?
Again, you show your ignorance with remarks like this. The prosecution doesn’t even have to address the claim that Zimmerman’s nose was punched, let alone prove anything about how he bled.
It’s up to the defense to present the argument that Martin was free from Z’s blood because all of this gore managed to confine itself neatly inside Z’s sinuses even while his head was being banged against the concrete. How they plan to do this without sending the court into a giggling fit, I can’t wait to see.
Here’s a couple.
These are incidences where the person convicted didn’t even admit to being at the scene of the crime and yet there was still a jury willing to find them guilty.
I never said it was a standard to aim for, I’m just saying how things are.
It’d never crossed my mind that he should be lynched; I’d just like to see him spend a long time in jail for the misery he’s caused Trayvon’s family and friends. Oh, and as a cautionary example to set to people who think it’s wise to go trailing suspected criminals but haven’t got the wisdom or common sense to maintain a safe distance.
If they had access to the internet and googled “mma mount” they would.
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4945496676173102&pid=15.1
Imagine the guy on top was wearing trousers, fighting someone who outweighed him by at least 40lb and who believed he was struggling for his life, while doing it on a wet, grassy surface.
Do you think this would make distinctive marks on said trousers? Would they appear different than the trousers of someone who had fell on top of someone and was just trying to get back up?