I think it’s a poor choice of language. It’s more like people making a much bigger deal about his injuries. Look at the photos: he has a couple of very small cuts. What you see that makes it look at all dramatic is simply the drip line of the blood. I’ve seen shaving cuts that bled worse Plus Zimmermans ultra close haircut left his skull unusually vulnerable to easier injury from minor events than if he had a full head of hair. Taken together, Those injuries hardly prove anything close to the story he’s told.
Stoid, you have great imagination. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.
Zimmerman said he reached for his phone. All the junior CSIs rolled their eyes at that. Well, it came out yesterday that when he reached for his phone, he accidentally pushed some buttons, and that and the the time when it happened got recorded by the phone. So - yes, he reached for the phone.
No, he wouldn’t. Until you can get the basic facts right, it’s pointless to argue interpretations.
Zimmerman would have us believe he stopped looking for Martin, and that is supported by the evidence.
Anyway, to answer your question, if it’s the case that Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin before the fight, as you suggest, why was Martin on top of him fighting for a few minutes, and why did Zimmerman wait those minutes before firing? Quite apart from the implausibility of him calling the police then going hunting for Martin with a drawn gun.
This. That one long drip is not consistent with the laws of gravity, as it crosses from one side of his head to the other, not up and down which one would expect form someone who stood up after a vicious attacks. The prosecution will show that the blood drips were induced from minor cuts in a sitting position, with the head held between the knees. The photos were staged, not faked.
I believe that some kind of physical confrontation did occur, since independent witnesses who called 911 saw one. Obviously, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but people reporting on their own initiative what they are seeing in the short term wouldn’t have all converged on the general description of two people rolling around on the ground without it happening. What the 911 calls don’t support is any clear and consistent narrative of who was doing what in the fight and what its extent was.
He could have bashed himself with the flashlight or anything else at hand. He could have legitimately gotten the injuries in the fight, but greatly exaggerated the extent of the fight and the injuries to get to the level of self-defense via lethal force–he could have shot too soon, or extricated himself from the brawl and then shot when the threat was no longer present at all. What we know is that Zimmerman is lying about something, and presumably he is doing so for a reason that helps his case. It didn’t happen the way he said. What, exactly, did happen, and if what actually happened was sufficient to justify lethal force for self-defense, why would he lie? This is the core of what makes me convinced he committed murder.
When in the less than 30 seconds between Martin having been shot and the police arriving, a period when he was observed by witnesses, did he have the opportunity to do this, and who was the accomplice? That is, who made the cuts, and photographed them?
Cite.
CMC fnord!
No, we don’t know that. We don’t even have any strong evidence to suggest that. What, apart from presuming his guilt, makes you sure he’s lying?
What we have is people who have decided they don’t like the fact that he shot and killed a black teenager, and are trying to spin that into a crime despite the evidence and despite the law.
I guess I’m unpersuaded. The photos look to me like he has some minor cuts and some bruising, possibly some raised lumps. Is that inconsistent with one’s head being banged on the ground? You cannot say such a thing categorically, of course, since it would depend on the amount of force. It is consistent with some levels of force, and inconsistent with others. What part of Zimmerman’s statement is it obviously inconsistent with?
The photographs in question were not shot 30 seconds after Martin was shot.
The police and the medical examiner noted his injuries when they examined him. How did he get them in that 30 seconds?
Zimmerman’s injuries and the lack of blood on Martin are not consistent with Zimmerman’s description of having his head bashed into the sidewalk repeatedly or being punched in the nose, and the lack of grass stains on Zimmerman’s clothing indicates that he was not being pressed into the ground at the spot he says he was. He’s lying when he asserts that it happened that way. The question is why and to what extent.
The police noted a small cut. The medical examiner did not examine Zimmerman, who is still alive.
They are precisely consistent with that, although of course they don’t prove it, and the responding officer reported grass on Zimmerman’s back.
Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple injuries to the front of his head, consistent with being punched and otherwise attacked, and more than one injury on the back of his head, consistent with being bashed against the ground.
Correct, there was no blood on Martin. There was also no blood on the ground where Martin died. Does that mean he wasn’t shot? Cite, and relevant quote.
Are any of you people actually following this case and looking at the evidence, or just relying on newspaper reports from over a year ago?
True enough regarding what Zimmerman would have us believe, my error. However I don’t recall hearing about any evidence supporting that claim. Zero, in fact, just the opposite.
I’m sorry, how does asking the same two questions again answer my questions about those questions? What is it about them struggling for the gun for more than a split-second strikes you as needing explaining?
And why in the world would it be “implausible” for Zimmerman to call police and then go after Martin? Did I or anyone else in this conversation suggest that Zimmerman was looking to murder Martin in cold blood? Certainly not me, As I made perfectly clear in my last post, and which you are ignoring. And you are ignoring it and spinning it in the same way you have everything, to support the story you prefer. It’s easier to dismiss the scenario I offer if you can color it is my painting Zimmerman as a cold-blooded murderer with the intention of killing Martin. But that is no more plausible than Zimmerman’s fiction. Simply being a fool who made stupid decisions is not only plausible, it is almost certainly the truth because it makes much more sense and fits the facts much better in every respect. It fits what we know about each man, what we know about Zimmerman’s thought processes (“These assholes always get away” – well, he wasn’t going to let this “Asshole”.) it fits the physical positioning of the men and the evidence, it fits the timeline, it fits what we know for sure we heard on the telephone calls, etc.
What does reaching for his phone have to do with anything at all, much less the scenario I put forth? Also what do you mean his button pressing got recorded? Can you point us to where you got this information because on the face of it it makes no sense of any kind… Pressing buttons On the phone isn’t “recorded” anywhere I know of.
False. He was examined in the police car. Cite (last paragraph).
The police responder said he had injuries to his nose and the back of his head. Cite (indented section).
He was then properly examined the next day, and the report is consistent with these accounts. Cite.
Are you even looking at the evidence here? You may come to different conclusions, but to pretend Zimmerman wasn’t injured in the way he claims straight after the incident is absurd.
His injuries were not consistent with his account of events. This is not the same as saying he had no injuries. Repeatedly asserting that he had some injuries doesn’t change the fact that he did not have the injuries that a person who had been through what he said he had been through should have had.
You are mistaken. There is no mention of the medical examiner in the last paragraph, or the whole article, for that matter.
Well you should try reading the thread then, as we’ve been over this. He agreed with the dispatcher that he didn’t need to follow Martin, appeared to stop moving, and claims he lost sight of him. Meanwhile, Deedee claims that Martin had lost sight of Zimmerman and returned home, shortly before the fight happened. All of which supports his claim (although, of course, doesn’t prove it).
Because they were fighting on the ground for a few minutes, and the screaming happened for those minutes. You contend that Martin was screaming in terror for that time, so you need to explain why he was doing so whilst remaining on top of Zimmerman, and why Zimmerman didn’t shoot earlier, if he was holding Martin at gunpoint as you claim.
Well, if you claim he murdered him, you are at least claiming he had the depraved mind needed to do so. Simply killing someone isn’t murder.
So, if you are claiming he’s not a murderer, what is it exactly that you’re claiming? Ignoring the fact that you’re aren’t accounting for Martin going home and returning…
You expect people to believe that Zimmerman held Martin at gunpoint for a significant amount of time, knowing that the police were on their way, but then shot him to stop him screaming? That’s absurd. Didn’t happen.