I saw it here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16409562&postcount=69
I saw it mentioned in other places too. I believe it was in the defense’s opening.
So, a paramedic is not a medical examiner? Is that what you’re basing your claim that he faked his injuries and the photos on, a semantic issue?
His injuries are entirely consistent with being punched in the face and bashed against the ground. He had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head. They are injuries one would expect to get from that sort of attack.
A. He has lied multiple times already, About multiple things, to multiple people, for multiple reasons. In fact, without thoroughly reviewing the statement for accuracy, I’d say it in terms of what we can prove for sure against what George Zimmerman has told said, he lies far more often than he ever tells the truth. Which makes it more logical to ask: “what, apart from wanting him to be innocent, (Probably because you’re a big fan of guns, and a big believer in being able to carry them around to defend yourself) makes you so sure he’s telling the truth?”
B. His story makes no sense at all. So, since we know he’s a liar, and we know that anything other than his story will put him in jail, chances are excellentthat he’s lying.
I can’t speak to what other people are thinking, but in my own case I don’t like the fact that this stupid, insecure, judgmental, irresponsible man with delusions about his role in the community took it upon himself to play cop, with a loaded gun. His paranoid, deluded, macho suspicions regarding perfectly normal human behavior led directly to the death of a completely innocent kid. What I don’t like is anybody looking for trouble, then claiming self-defense after they create it. One way or another George Zimmerman is the problem here and he needs to be made accountable for his behavior.
You said the medical examiner noted his injuries. That is false. A paramedic is not a medical examiner. Words have meanings.
And that proves his injuries and the photos were falsified how?
Well, you know, the pedantry only goes one way–Zimmerman’s supporters can talk for 200 pages about the crucial difference between iced tea and watermelon drink or between “proving self-defense did not occur” and “proving murder occurred,” but lo to anyone who tries to invoke the same technicalities regarding a 17-year-old being legally defined as a child, or the difference between a paramedic and a medical examiner, or between a cut and a contusion, because anything that makes Zimmerman look bad is not worth being accurate about.
I was responding to your claim. The photos were not taken by the police or paramedics at the time he was examined.
I don’t need to be sure he’s telling the truth. I need to be sure that no reasonable person could think he is, otherwise he should be found not guilty.
As the bulk of the evidence seen so far is consistent with his statement, I will believe it.
Whether he has lied in the past about other things is utterly irrelevant. I’m not interested in his reliability, only whether his statement is consistent with the evidence. I’m not suggesting it should be believed in a vacuum.
Stop maintaining this fiction that anything but his story will put him in jail. As we’ve been through repeatedly, it’s quite possible that her could have attacked Martin and still been allowed to kill in self defence. Of course, we have no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight…
Anyway, it doesn’t matter what the chances are that he’s lying, not even slightly. What matters is if it can be proven.
His deluded suspicions that being punched in the face represented a threat to his wellbeing? The only person who caused Martin’s death was Martin, when he chose to not enter his house and instead go back to Zimmerman and attack him.
Neither of their actions prior to the attack matter even slightly. That said, there’s nothing wrong, and a good deal right, with calling the police on someone you think is suspicious. More people should do it. Maybe if that had happened, and maybe if Martin had actually been punished for his prior crimes (that you conveniently ignore whilst slandering Zimmerman) he would have realised he couldn’t get away with thuggery.
Zimmerman wasn’t looking for trouble, he was going shopping, and happened across trouble. How, exactly, do you get to Martin being completely innocent? Are you also claiming Zimmerman faked his injuries? It’s like a conspiracy theory thread in here at the moment…
So, how does that prove that the injuries and photos were faked? Since that’s your claim, and your reason for disagreeing with the semantics of my post, but not, interestingly, the content.
In my opinion, the photos look staged. I am confident there is nothing you would allow as proof that Zimmerman was anything other than an innocent victim. Perhaps you should revisit the title to this thread. My life won’t end if you don’t respect my opinions and speculation; lord knows I don’t respect yours. This is not a courtroom.
There’s plenty that would do it. Witness evidence would be best, something that shows that he wasn’t being attacked when he shot Martin would be good, or evidence that he threatened Martin or started the fight (not that that would necessarily stop him claiming self defence).
Proof that what you claim, that the injuries weren’t there immediately after he killed Martin would suggest he had nothing to defend himself from, as would a legitimate identification of the screams being from Martin.
Even evidence that the fight didn’t happen somewhere Zimmerman could have received those injuries would be a start. However, not only do we not have such evidence for any of these things, we have evidence to the contrary that supports Zimmerman’s claim.
I know that must be upsetting to those who think that any death requires vengeance, regardless of the circumstances, but hopefully you’ll manage to deal with it, and one day reach the more enlightened view that law and justice is preferable.
The way you are “misunderstanding” my clear simple language is making it much easier for me to see how you’re buying into Zimmerman. Please show me where I claim that Zimmerman “held Martin at gunpoint”.
Secondly, How convenient to ignore my use of the word “struggle”, which I used twice. Am I supposed to believe that you find it impossible to envision a situation in which one man is struggling with another man for control of a gun, And the man who does not have control of the gun is on top of the man who does, and as he’s trying to pull it away or push it away from himself he’s screaming for help? Really, you you can’t imagine that situation? You think that Martin being on top of Zimmerman somehow takes away the power that Zimmerman has in his hands? If I’m on my back holding my gun and you’re on top of me trying to get my gun from me because you think I’m going to shoot you with it if you stop trying to take it from me, I would fully expect you to be screaming your head off trying to get someone’s attention while you did so.
But if I were lying on the ground with you on top of me picking my head up and smashing it into the ground with your legs on either side of my torso, Not only would I not be screaming at the top of my lungs for help, I can’t imagine that I would even be able to. At least not the loud, consistent way it is heard on the 911 calls. I also find it hard to understand how you would see my gun from the position you’re in, and how I suddenly have so much strength and ability to control you while I manage to reach between your legs and my body to get my gun, given your terrifying physical dominance and control over me a second earlier, during which I nearly pass out.
By the way, if you believe Zimmerman story exactly as he told it, Can you explain why he took aim? How does one take aim in such a close physical struggle as he described? I’ll tell you: you don’t. If everything happened the way Zimmerman said up to the point of his pulling the gun, then what makes sense for how Martin would’ve been shot Is something much more like “the gun went off in the struggle”. But Zimmerman specifically said in the interview the following day that he aimed. He did not misspeak when he said that, you don’t misspeak about something so incredibly critical. And If he had room to aim, and he also had the option not to fire. Think about it.
Yep, and we went through all these definitions a year ago.
I very much agree, which is why I didn’t say that.
I am confident justice will be done when the jury renders their judgement either way. Can you say the same? Or will there be whining about jury nullification?
As I think he’s innocent, if the jury nullify it will have the same effect as if they genuinely found him not guilty, and I’d be happy with it. Finding him guilty because they disagreed with the law is not nullification, is not legal, and would not survive appeal. So, if he’s found guilty in spite of the evidence, no, I’ll not be happy, and I suspect it wouldn’t stand.
If, on the other hand, additional evidence is provided that proves guilt, I’ll be fine with it.
Here.
You suggest that Zimmerman started the fight by pulling his gun on Martin, which is what started the fight. Which is nonsense.
If Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose, and was then on top of him continuing to attack him, Zimmerman had every right to kill him, unless Martin stopped the attack and made it clear he was no longer a threat. Trying to get the gun from him - when he had a legitimate right to both have and use it - does not achieve this. But congratulations, you’ve just managed to show that, even if it was Martin screaming, it doesn’t show Zimmerman’s guilt. If I’m ever prosecuted for a crime, I hope you are the prosecutor.
Your argument only holds if Zimmerman threatened Martin with his gun, and then Martin defended himself - but you have no evidence whatsoever for that.
How about if they don’t have the same opinion as you on the strength of the evidence? Could they not find Zimmerman guilty in accordance with the law, simply because they concluded the inculpatory evidence was stronger than the exculpatory evidence? That is why we have juries, after all. Any one person can reach the wrong conclusion on the basis of evidence they heard about over the intarwebs. I have confidence that six strong women won’t all make the same mistake that would constitute grounds for appeal.
Actually, Martin had just one tiny ‘scrape’, below the knuckle, IIRC. In other words - his hands were in awfully pristine condition for having punched someone in the head ‘more than a dozen times’, which is the direct quote from GZ.
And yet, no one can provide any cite other than a post in this very thread.
More to the point, George specifically says that he put his phone in his jacket pocket after hanging up from the NEN call, but that, after being surprised by Martin*, he reached for his phone in his -pants pocket- out of habit, since that is where he normally kept his phone. In other words - George specifically says that he never actually touched his phone before being punched in the nose by Martin. If any button was actually pushed, by George’s own admission it wasn’t because George pushed it.
*We’ll ignore how ridiculous it is to assume that Martin would sneak up behind George in the darkness, then decide to ruin all element of surprise by talking to him.
The evidence has to exist in the first place, though, and your example of “nullification” suggests that they would find him guilty despite the lack of such evidence - and that is not legal.
Also, the standard is not preponderance of evidence, so finding him guilty simply because the inculpatory evidence is stronger is also not acceptable, although harder (by far) to overturn at appeal. If the evidence doesn’t show that the only thing a reasonable person could believe is that he’s guilty of murder, he should be acquitted.
So, if you think he’s probably guilty, based on the evidence, you should want him to be acquitted.
ETA But yes, you are indeed correct that they could have a different opinion to me, and it is also possible that they are all reasonable and I am not. Indeed, if all of them, basing their opinion solely on the evidence feel so, I would need to examine my view carefully.
And how do you make the leap from that to my saying that Martin was being “held at gunpoint”? Well, I know how, actually… you just skip or ignore everything else I said that went with it so you can make that claim.
Why? Why is it nonsense? Where is the nonsensical aspect of it? Since every time you are questioned about the events of that night you pretty much invariably include things which only come from Zimmerman’s account, I won’t be holding my breath on the answer to that. But it would be interesting if you could formulate an argument for why, in this instance, my scenario is “nonsense” that does not include “since we know X is a fact” (because that’s what Zimmerman told us about it) and have it clearly demonstrate why it’s nonsense.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the deep underlying reality driving this debate. You believe in your heart that a punch in the nose is properly answered with death, which is a chasm of moral and ethical viewpoints so wide as to defy any and all attempts at bridging.