Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

I’d much rather that than have some cop-wannabe with a gun and a hard-on for catching ‘suspicious up-to-no-good punks’ chasing me.

Huh? The mailbox kiosk is east of the clubhouse. Zimmerman stated that he passed Martin near 1450 Retreat View Circle (I believe this is Frank Taaffe’s house – it’s near the short-cut into the neighbourhood), then parked on the north side of the clubhouse when he got through to NEN, Martin passed his truck – which he normally would since he’s walking towards home – and turned right (south) onto Twin Trees. At which point Zimmerman says he followed him in the car. So when Martin sees him again, the guy that slowed down to take a look at him back at the north-west corner of the complex didn’t drive out of the complex onto Oregon Ave, he drove back –into- the complex, following Martin. Yeah, I’d find that a bit creepy.

It can? Cite? And you do know what this does to Zimmerman’s whole ‘he went up the cut-through and turned right, then came back down to my truck, circled it, then ‘skipped’ up the cut-through and turned right again’ claim, right?

Actually, the evidence is clear from Zimmerman himself that Trayvon did in fact go past his truck - while George was at the Clubhouse. Martin walked past his truck while George was parked and on the phone with NEN. Go back and watch the video walkthrough.

If you want to call walking past the parked truck directly on the shortest past home ‘approaching’ George’s truck, knock yourself out.

Speaking of ‘knock yourself out’:

Ahahaha – ‘covered’ in abrasions and ‘multiple’ puncture points? You mean the two tiny lacerations, the largest of which was 2mm? Two medical witnesses testified that George’s injuries were ‘minimal’ and ‘insignificant’ and this was NOT rebutted at all by the Defense; instead they went with the ‘yeah, but the next bump might be fatal!’ approach. The defense knows the wounds aren’t that serious, and they don’t look that serious. They know that the vast majority of people (i.e., jurors) know that even tiny head wounds bleed a lot and thus look more ‘bloody’ and serious than they really are.

His wounds are minimal. The more you try to play up how ‘beat up’ he was, the more I conclude you’re just not even trying to think about the case in any objective way. There are any number of factors you can point to suggest Zimmerman’s innocence; his injures ain’t one of ‘em.

What do you mean, not a single scratch? YOU WERE FUCKING KNOCKED OUT COLD.

Or maybe you’re saying that Zimmerman was actually knocked out cold and just hasn’t told anybody?

What gz had was what moms of toddlers call a " boo boo" ew, now I have a creepy image of gz asking his latest victim, i mean girlfriend, to kiss it and make it better…

If your mom called a broken nose a “boo boo”, you may have had an abusive or neglectful mother. Might be worth talking to a therapist about.

I hope you don’t have children. In my view, it would be child abuse or criminal neglect to respond to your child’s broken nose as a “boo boo,” with only an offer of kiss and make better for treatment, as opposed to prompt address by qualified medical personnel.

Is that how you plan to treat your children?

So what? Trayvon is in a coffin, genius…THATS a big deal

I called 'em booboos. The kind you put a power rangers band aid on.

These aren’t lumps on a babies head. This is a “grown ass man”. Go ahead and google image “beating victim”. Zimmerman has some ouchies on his head for getting his ass kicked for so long. :frowning: Poor Mr. Zimmerman. It is a evidentiary fact that Zimmerman’s wounds were not significant.

According to Zimmerman interviews he screamed for help for a long time as *the wild animal * Trayvon beat him mercilessly, yet George’s wounds were not visible just minutes or hours later. No defensive wounds. No scratches or eye gouges on Trayvon. No bite marks on Trayvons hands if he was smothering Zimmermans ability to talk and breath. Nothing. Nothing. Just one wound on Trayvon, a bullet hole in his chest.

You know, you make it sound like Zimmerman was getting beaten up, was unable to fight Martin off, and had to defend himself with his pistol.

Probably not your intention, though.

Mmmhmmm, , …so tm was a maniac beating gz to a pulp…and, then, gz ends up with no significant injuries?

I was tempted to say that your position is that shooting her would be an equally justified option, but I suppose that would be over the line.

His injuries were trivial. If that’s sufficient to justify shooting someone, ever bar skerfuffle that happens across the country every day of the week should reasonably and justifiably end up with someone shot to death. We’d end up with thousands of people dead each year.

Well, actually I guess we already do.

Dr. DiMaio testified that Zimmerman’s face and head had suffered at least six separate impacts. Is there a number of blows where Zimmerman would have been entitled to defend himself? It must be less than 6, I take it.

How do you figure a broken nose is trivial? Do you know what that word means?

It’d be a non sequitur, certainly.

“Minor”, perhaps. If a broken nose is trivial, I invite you to break yours to prove your point.

Florida’s self-defense statutes don’t require any level of injury. That would be moronic, the point of self-defense is to prevent death or serious injury, not to avenge them.

I’ve not said that Zimmerman’s injuries justify shooting someone, as that would be a meaningless statement. Once more: the law doesn’t require or even mention injuries being sustained. A person could be horribly injured but not entitled to use deadly force to defend themselves, another could be totally uninjured and be entitled. That goes for bar fights, too. The injuries only matter in this case in that they indicate that a fight occurred, in which a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm.

To go to the other extreme and call a broken nose and being struck in the face and head six times a “boo boo” is just childish, and ignorant, since it presupposes that there’s some level of injury a person must absorb before being allowed to defend themselves.

No. THATS a good deal.

I think the injuries on Zimmerman show he wasn’t getting beaten to a pulp. He wasn’t getting his head bashed in and punched repeatedly. There is no evidence that Zimmerman resisted in any way with non-lethal force prior to going with the nuclear option. Zimmerman had no defensive wounds. Nothing other than the tiny wounds on his head. What did Zimmerman do for all that time that Trayvon was on top of him?

The good news is this is a thread for speculation, and your welcome to disagree with me and tell me why.

If what we saw of Zimmerman from the photos taken at and after the shooting are the result of six separate impacts from Martin punching him squarely in the face, then it’s safe to conclude that Trayvon Martin wasn’t capable of killing a flea.

None of that (being beaten to a pulp, resisting with non-deadly force first) is required to legally use deadly force in self defense.

That’s the opinion of one of the nation’s foremost forensic pathologists. Forgive me if I value his opinion over yours.

Besides, the prosecution’s pathologist testified that Zimmerman could have been struck 4 or so times.

Does that two-blow difference make the difference between guilt and innocence for you?

He did not have a broken nose. He was never treated for a broken nose. EMS suggested he did, but there is no evidence he was ever treated for it. He never complained about pain. No bruised eyes. No broken nose.

The state has every right to use the bring up that Zimmermans injuries were minimal. Just as the defense will continuously show the two bloody pictures that make the injuries look worse than reality.

It sure makes a big difference as to whether I believe Zimmerman “felt like his head was going to explode” or was justified in fearing great bodily harm. If the injuries in the photos and no neurological damage whatsoever are the result of Martin pummeling him for 4, 6, or “25 to 30” times then he obviously was so weak that there was no danger.

Could Zimmerman fear great bodily harm without actually suffering great bodily harm?