Magiver, call me when your evidence consists of more than a one-sentence aside about Z bleeding in the police report, and stuff reported on FOXNews about what some neighbors supposedly saw a day after the incident. Then I’ll restore your objective card.
And I agree with you that the real danger is brain trauma. Concussions are scary prospects because they can cause complications that show up hours after the trauma occurred. This is why it is very telling that Zimmerman delayed hospital care until the next day. Add in the supposed broken nose, and it’s extremely hard to buy this guy’s story. Unless he is superman, his pain should have been more obvious on the video and he would’ve gone to the ER sooner. But if he is superman, he wouldn’t have been yelling desperately for help like someone in extreme fear or pain.
None of it adds up, sorry.
In my view, there is no “if” – the peculiar feature of he Florida law that declares a suspect to be “immune from arrest” needs to be changed even if Jesus descends from above with a heavenly version of the iPhone showing video of how Martin beat Zimmerman with a rubber hose and a mallet.
well I’m not surprised you used the “Fox News defense”. Despite the fact I never quoted Fox you’ve used this as some mental support of your dislike for my argument.
All I’ve shown is that the evidence as has been made public is consistent with Zimmerman’s story which survived 5 hrs of interrogation and a prosecuting attorney’s opinion.
There is nothing that has been presented that contradicts Zimmerman’s account beyond armchair speculations about the need for large amounts of blood. Getting your head pounded into the cement by someone on top of you is a life threatening event at some point and it doesn’t require a lot of blood to accomplish. Witness accounts verify part of Zimmerman’s story at this point so unless there is additional information contradicting what happened then you’re going to have to accept the possibility that justice has already been served and this was a tragic event. You can’t call it an accident if a fight broke out and you can’t blame Zimmerman for defending himself.
your cite does not say always. It says often. Common sense should tell you the police would not want even a little blood in their car and would see that it is tended to. I just backed into the point of a steel beam last week. It was quite the puncture wound. No tidal wave of blood. All that is relevant is that the police noted his head showed signs of injury.
The whole argument is stupid. There is an EMT report. The investigators have it. If Zimmerman went to the hospital the next day, the investigators have that as well. They have pictures and videos of Zimmerman as he was interrogated for hours after the incident. They have transcripts and videos of hours of his interrogations so they can check the details whether they match. They have the sworn statements of the various witnesses - not what they are blabbing to the media, but sworn statements. There is loads and loads of evidence that all the junior CSIs on SDMB have no idea about.
All this “oh this piece of evidence that just came out on ABC is damning to Zimmerman” is ridiculous. Damning for whom? The Trayvon’s family and supporters? Like they didn’t already decide who’s guilty. For the public? Great - let’s put someone in jail based on opinion polls. What exactly is the point?
The Grand Jury is empaneled on April 10th. That’s 9 days away. Or the investigator may decide to charge Zimmerman or let him walk before that. But pretty sure by April 10th we will know whether there will be a trial or not. And whether there will be a trial or not, all those pieces of evidence will eventually be released. Florida has very strong sunshine laws.
And lots of hats will be eaten by all those who are so certain of facts today.
Actually, that’s the date they start. It’ll take a week or two for the prosecutor to present all the evidence and testimony to the GJ. Call it “by the end of the month”, instead, if you want to be accurate.
Why would he start now?
What evidence would that be?
The only evidence we, the general public, have that Martin was the aggressor is that Zimmerman says he was. Zimmerman is not exactly an unbiased source.
No other human on earth can vouch for that part of Zimmerman’s story. that we know of. There is no physical evidence that we know of that Martin started it. There is no sensible circumstantial evidence that Martin was the aggressor. Despite your implying otherwise, nobody except Zimmerman and Martin saw who started the fight, nothing the girlfriend has claimed suggests Martin started the fight, and Zimmerman’s injuries don’t in any way indicate who started the fight.
You’re accusing other people of saying things that can’t know, and here you’re making a claim that is cimpletely unfounded in any evidence you can possibly possess.
Perhaps you should read the rest of the post of mine that you so selectively quoted. In short, there’s very little evidence available to the public as to who started the fight, but what there is points to it being Martin. The only claim I’m making is that there is literally no reason at this point to claim Zimmerman started anything. As I said in my previous post, one can’t claim with any degree of certainty that Martin did either.
What part of this claim do you consider unfounded?
Being out of his truck, having followed Martin and having told 911 “these arseholes always getaway” gives you NO reason to think that Zimmerman did anything to Martin? You think that none of this suggests that Zimmerman may well have confronted Martin, tried to restrain him, grabbed him or stopped him?
Although I am pretty firmly in the Martin camp, its not beyond the realms of possibility for me to believe that he cold cocked or sucker punched Zimmerman. The much more likely explanation (IMO) is that Zimmerman “did something” to him first though.
From Saturday’s Orlando Sentinel…
By “what there is,” though, you’re implying there is in fact some evidence Martin started the fight. But there is no such evidence.
There is a great deal of evidence that Zimmerman’s actions triggered a confrontation. AFAIK, the only evidence as yet as to who initiated physical contact is Zimmerman’s statement, which has to be regarded with considerable suspicion.
Zimmerman was interrogated for five hours immediately after the incident. The police said he didn’t change his story even once. Didn’t ask for an attorney. Volunteered information. Yes, if they find concrete evidence that contradicts his testimony (which, by the way none of us saw verbatim), that’s would be detrimental to his case (and no, “it sounded like a young boy” is definitely not concrete). For example, Martin having the entry wound in the back instead of in front. Or a an eyewitness that clearly saw the beginning of the confrontation and is believable. But so far, I have seen nothing concrete.
Please take a look at this and tell me I’m not that crazy:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-20120326_1_police-dispatcher-new-details-protesters
This is the Orlando Sentinel reporting about one of their articles in the third person and screwing it up. Right?
"
The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that police sources say Martin was the aggressor on Feb. 26, knocking Zimmerman to the ground with a single punch and then climbing on top of the 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain and slamming the back of his head into the ground. Police say this account, given by Zimmerman, is supported by eyewitnesses, according to the Sentinel’s report.
"
They say
" Police say this account, given by Zimmerman, is supported by eyewitnesses…"
and included in the account the article gives is:
“…Martin was the aggressor on Feb. 26, knocking Zimmerman to the ground with a single punch…”
But these things are not supported by eyewitnesses.
Compare with the Sentinel article that this Sentinel article is written about
"
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.
"
To me this seems just weird.
Who cares?
By that I mean, ‘confrontation’ is being used in the general sense that he could have avoided the whole thing and didn’t. Yes, but not relevant to the issue of arrest and prosecution.
If he had followed the dispatcher’s advice, Martin would most likely be alive. But that doesn’t mean there was a crime.
Yes, but “considerable suspicion” is not enough to say “probable cause he used force unlawfully.”
Yes, there is. Zimmerman’s testimony is evidence.
How much weight to assign to it is obviously debatable, but you can’t say it doesn’t exist.
ETA: your earlier post acknowledged this. My bad.
Actually, I made an error in not quoting the specific comment I was responding to, which was something Steophan said in post #2770:
[QUOTE]
…The only claim I’m making is that there is literally no reason at this point to claim Zimmerman started anything… [/QUOTE
And, another error of mine, I didn’t object strongly enough, because IMO there is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman started everything. This is a completely different issue from whether he is ultimately held to be criminally liable for Martin’s death.
Honestly the issue of Zimmerman’s injuries is one of the dumbest to come up in this thread. And **Terr **is 100% correct, we have an EMT report and medical records from Zimmerman’s doctor if he went in for treatment the next day. In any trial, the police who questioned Zimmerman will also almost certainly testify about any injuries. We also have a high likelihood of video tape from the interrogation room, which will probably be of better quality than the grainy video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station.
I see no reason everyone needs to diagnose the extent of Zimmerman’s injuries when those facts most certainly exist and are available to everyone who matters in this case.
What also makes the point so stupid is it doesn’t matter how injured Zimmerman was. To support his claim of self defense there is no requirement under the law that he suffer any injury.