Well he did a pretty good number on him so you got most of your wish.
and yet Zimmerman was injured front and back. Do you have evidence someone else did this?
another dimmy derko original. You can divine Martin’s behavior from 4000 miles away. We should just filter all our court cases through you for sentencing.
And no dimmy we do not know Martin’s behavior was misinterpreted by Zimmerman. What we do know is that Zimmerman took time out of his day to call the police regarding something he thought was suspicious. The phone call is the evidence of that.
and that better thing to do was confront Zimmerman and assault him.
Anyone who knows anything about fighting via sources and experiences beyond watching Jason Statham movies, knows that this fight doesn’t pass the smell test.
If Z was as dazed and overmatched as he claims, AND TM was seriously trying to hurt Z, just one head slam against a concrete surface would have finished him off.
If Martin “pounded his head into the pavement” (the phrase that the chorus likes repeating) for as long as he did, Zimmerman should have had more serious injuries…
If you think a few superficial scratches and a broken nose are a “good number” after someone is supposed to have sucker-punched you to the ground, jumped on you and added a few more punches for spite, then when you tried to get up, slammed your head several times against a pavement edge, then your judgement is worthless.
No. Do you have evidence they occurred in the manner described?
Cite he should have more serious injuries? If Zimmerman is on his back then his head is no more than a foot or so off the ground when he tries to get up. The back of his head is covered with abrasions which is consistent with multiple strikes.
But you don’t care. You don’t have the emotional discipline to stop yourself from calling people names like “the chorus”.
I’m not sure of your point here. Is there some form of sarcasm involved and you are saying TM was obviously a better fighter than Z?
In a street fight, combatants very rarely go to the ground voluntarily. They usually land there during a struggle for standing dominance, via a slip or lack of any real takedown defence training. If one person puts another on the deck with their first punch, or stuns another so badly they can’t defend themselves properly, they even more rarely wait for them to fall over then jump straight into a mounted position. The ones that would tend to be the type that once they get up close and personal to you, they will seriously fuck you up.
Maybe TM really did find himself in that position and think he could fuck up the nosey guy badly, but his actions on the ground certainly don’t indicate him capable of it. Not only can he barely cause a cut with a head slam, but the poor kid had pillow-fists and seemed far more likely to cause a broken nose with a headbutt.
The kind of abrasions you’d get if your head ended up anywhere near a concrete surface and your head was glancing against the concrete, not injuries that would have occurred if a head was being deliberately slammed against it with little resistance, if any.
The insult was against your judgement regarding what constitutes a “good number.” Don’t take it to heart. You might have perfectly valid opinions on other topics, for all I know.
Z’s injuries were so severe that, after a quick wipedown, he looked as though he could go another 10 rounds with TM. I’m sure you want to believe he didn’t want to go and be checked out at hospital because he’s a cheapskate, but less trusting people are wondering if it is because he knew he hadn’t been in a life or death struggle and he didn’t want experts confirming it.
The back of his head shows multiple strike locations. The injuries are consistent with his statement of Martin slamming his head into the cement when he tried to get up.
were you expecting a JFK type head injury with only a foot of distance to travel?
And this is why I tend to discount your opinions on the subject. You keep deliberately discounting the facts that lead one to believe that Zimmerman might be lying. For example, it’s ridiculous to say that, if someone lies about one thing, it has no bearing on whether they lie about something else. If I were to lie to you right now, you would tend to disbelieve me in the future. The fact that you refuse to even possibly consider the idea that someone lying about one thing makes them less trustworthy about another makes me discount your ability to judge people in general.
It’s been repeatedly shown why it’s a bad idea to follow a suspected criminal while you are carrying a gun. That you refuse to admit that it’s a bad idea really also discounts your opinion.
You seem to think that the way lawyers do thing is somehow right, and it’s not. Presuming innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept used to make sure you don’t accidentally incarcerate the wrong guy. It’s not something used when forming an opinion about something. If you’re wanting to remain neutral, remain neutral.
But the worst thing is your attack by calling something “movie logic.” You do realize that the reason why those things reason that logic is used in movies is that many people find it convincing, right?
given that a head is basically spherical in nature it takes multiple strikes to cover the surface. This is what is seen in the picture. This is what Zimmerman described.
why would you think he needed to go to the hospital. He stopped the beating by shooting Martin. And your 4000 mile distant psychic abilities that allow you to know how he felt are as amazing as always but they fly in the evidence available. Witness 13 said he sounded like someone who just got his butt whooped.
No. Given that a head is basically spherical in nature, and prone to being marked by hard objects quite easily, it means that the head need never leave the floor and could just roll against a piece of gravel and sustain a bleeding injury. Any other marks could easily be the result of friction.
He’s supposed to have been pummelled almost into unconsciousness. How much it cost to establish that he wasn’t suffering hidden injuries shouldn’t have even been an issue, especially so when you’ve got the death of a teenager to justify.
It’s far more likely that a person on the ground will struggle to get up and highly unlikely that an attacking person would grind someone’s head into the cement. But yes, anything is possible. the court has to prove his head wasn’t slammed into the cement. His head shows injuries consistent with Zimmerman’s account.
Yes, and the court has to prove he wasn’t. As it stands, it cannot.
No reasonable person would come to that conclusion. I’ll bet every member of the jury has had worse injuries from far less sinister circumstances. If there’s one person on the jury who has actually been in a fight and knows anything about the dynamics of delivering a sucker-punch and the physics of what happens when a person is hit in a particular direction, that person isn’t going to believe a word of it.
Meanwhile, here we are still shooting the breeze and you haven’t changed your conviction on what a badass TM was one iota since page 1.
I accept that showing he lied about one thing may make you (or me, or anyone) less likely to believe him in future. What I don’t accept is that, just because you think he’s untrustworthy, you can conclude that he’s lying about something which is supported by the physical and witness evidence, and hence conclude he is a murderer.
I’ve repeatedly said I think Zimmerman’s actions were stupid and dangerous, and that being attacked by the suspected criminal he was following is good evidence of that. However, following a suspected criminal when you have a gun, if carrying that gun is legal, is far less stupid than doing so without one.
Also, being stupid does not equal being guilty of murder. Bricker has said upthread that it may make him guilty of manslaughter. I don’t share that opinion, but I’ve not looked at Florida’s manslaughter laws in any detail, and I also don’t know whether the SYG immunity would extend to that.
I will repeat again that, in my opinion, none of Zimmerman’s acts appear to have been illegal, based on the evidence. He carried a gun, legally. He followed Martin, legally. He approached and spoke to Martin, legally. He shot Martin in self defence, legally. Even if you contend that the totality of these actions amount to unlawful recklessness, that cannot make him a murdered.
It is what I use to form an opinion about something as serious as calling someone a murderer, or calling them guilty of any other serious crime. I’m not, however, claiming to be neutral. I’m claiming that I am, and that it is correct to be, on the side of the defendant until such point as they are proven guilty.
The reason for this is I prefer to live in a society governed by laws, and that those laws bind not just me and other individuals, but also bind the government’s power, and that of the legal system. I consider that calling for the arrest and trial of someone when there is insufficient evidence to make it likely there will be a conviction to be antithetical to that, and to be immoral, frankly.
That many people believe something doesn’t make it right. Frankly, the reason these things are used in movies is because they are dramatically successful, not because they are realistic or logical, and the reason people believe them is because they’ve seen them so often.
People want to believe them in this case because they want a simple answer, with an obvious good guy and bad guy. Sadly, it doesn’t appear we have that.
