“The Daily Caller enhanced the lower image to show additional detail”
It may only be “enhanced”. With a more reputable publication, I wouldn’t think much of it at all. With The Daily fucking Caller, all bets are off.
To make it appear that Zimmerman was injured? I am pretty skeptical. For some other reason? Then so what?
Lol, whatever. Subconsciously, you are probably starting to realize that if Zimmerman was indeed injured consistent with his story, then you will have to slink back in to your hole.
Yes, it’s surely boring to actually explain and defend your position. However, I have no interest in engaging with such. Bye.
To be ruthlessly fair, they show the unenhanced image as well.
Promises, promises.
Yes, they do, which I frankly only believe is untouched because I’ve seen it elsewhere. Again, it’s the Daily Caller. You remember that movie where no one could lie? Did they mention the existence of the Daily Caller in that movie? Not a coincidence. 
You can say someone subconsciously thinks anything you want, and there’s no defense. If you say that you aren’t thinking that, then you can say it’s just subconscious. It poisons the well, and should be above someone with rules of debate.
Furthermore, you just called her a name, implying she was some sort of snake or varmint. That’s not the type the type of argument you say you want, i.e. one without namecalling and insults.
Still, like all poisoned wells, there is an antidote, and I will offer it, since she can’t. While it would be a nice smoking gun if the video proved Zimmerman injuries were inconsistent with the police report, it’s not like the pro-Martin case crumbles if they were actually consistent. We didn’t even know about this video until quite recently. It makes no sense for anyone to “slink back into [their] hole” when they were already making the case without the video evidence.
An injured Zimmerman would still be guilty if he started the fight, even with the SYG law. Remember, an assaulted Martin would have no duty to retreat, either.
What exact point do you think he’s making? Maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think he’s actually calling you a racist. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’s saying the same thing you did in another thread, that people cry racism for no reason. Although I guess he could be making fun of you for that reasoning, since, on this board at least, it’s pretty much a strawman.
Where were they? I’ve seen references to Martin slamming Z.'s head into the sidewalk, and then I read that Martin’s body was found at some distance from the sidewalk, in the grass.
Certainly if Z’s head was slammed into the sidewalk, a gash on the back of the head makes perfect sense, except for the lack of blood on his person or the sidewalk. If there were a blood stain on the sidewalk, I imagine we would have heard about it. In the context of “heard about it” being “trumpeted to the skies”.
If we are talking about the grass, it becomes a bit more difficult, we have to assume some hard object in the grass. Which isn’t out of the question, of course. A stone, fossilized dog poo, something like that.
You are free to have your own rules. I sometimes speculate about peoples’ motivations.
Again, you are free to have your own rules. Here’s what mine say:
I would say it pretty much crumbles. To be sure, one can concoct scenarios in which Zimmerman throws the first punch and therefore is not entitled to plead self-defense. But looking at the situation reasonably, it’s pretty likely at that point that his story is essentially true.
I’m not sure what your point is here.
I agree. But to reasonably conclude that Zimmerman is guilty, one has to believe that he is lying about what happened. It’s reasonable to be skeptical about his story if there is no significant corroborating evidence. But if there is significant corroborating evidence, the reasonable conclusion is that he is probably telling the truth.
Stop with the junior CSI act, D! My grandfathers next door neighbor’s cousin once was thwacked in the head by a metal baseball bat ten times in the rain, but was able to walk perfectly straight afterwards. And they didn’t have to go to the hospital until a day later either. Just like the Zimster.
'Course, in this person’s case they didn’t scream for help like a helpless kid like Zimmerman supposedly did. One would think that someone who can take such a beating and be so perky and pristine in the aftermath would be similarly composed during the main event. But look at me, using that amaterish CSI logic again! Bad me.
How about if some guy follows one about and pulls a gun on one?
Or that he concocted his story to match the evidence. If Zimmerman was injured, it supports his claim that a fight took place. It doesn’t do a thing to prove who started it.
For that matter, Zimmerman could have deliberately injured himself after the shooting, in order to make his claim of self-defense more credible.
Oh, so that’s what they mean by “self-abuse”! Wish someone had told me sooner.
No matter what evidence comes out, there will be lots of possible explanations which are consistent with Zimmerman being guilty. And many of the people who are emotionally or financially invested in Zimmerman being guilty will no doubt cling to those explanations.
However, if it turns out that Zimmerman really does have a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head, the simple, reasonable explanation which will be accepted by reasonable people will be that things went down pretty much as Zimmerman described.
We *already *know otherwise, from the police’s own video. Your position is inconsistent with fact.
But we already know that, too.
I disagree. From the video, it appears that something is wrong with Zimmerman’s nose. Also, there appears to be some sort of discoloration on the back of his head.
I will wait to see the actual photos (if they exist) before making up my mind.
Exactly what position are you talking about? That it’s possible Zimmerman has injuries consistent with his story?
I disagree. If Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, or harassed him in some way, it would not be consistent with his story at all, and would still be consistent with his injuries.
Only to people inclined to believe Zimmerman’s account. There is nothing abnormal looking about that man’s head, at least physically. Mentally is another story.
Yes. Was that unclear?
You’re seeing what you want to see, not what’s there.
I agree that “*f Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, or harassed him in some way, it would not be consistent with his story at all, and would still be consistent with his injuries.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “harass,” since by Zimmerman’s own admission, he watched Martin; called the authorities about him; and then attempted to follow him. The legal question in your scenario will be whether Zimmerman engaged in any behavior which forfeited his right of self-defense. Is there any evidence at all that this happened?
The main arguments I have heard from “Team Trayvon” are that (1) based on the size disparity, it’s not possible that Martin could have sucker punched Zimmerman, brought him down, and started beating him; and (2) Zimmerman is uninjured and therefore his story is a lie.
I disagree, but I am happy to wait for better pictures to come up the pike.
Yes, a bit.
I suspect it’s more a case of you not seeing what you don’t want to see.
But I am happy to wait for better pictures to come along. If it turns out that Zimmerman does not have the injuries one would expect from his story, then he’s a fucking liar and deserves to go to jail.