Zimmerman doctor confirms broken nose, autopsy of Martin shows knuckle abrasions
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="Bucked20"] So because Zimmerman happened to get his asss whoop,its no way Martin could have been the one that got attacked ?Nuck81
If there is no physical evidence to say that Martin was beaten or battered... then no.
EDIT: Unless of course Zimmerman hits like an absolute b*tch and did no damage whatsoever even with the leading blow.
Or Martin blocked/dodged the blow. It could have also hit him in an area where it left no physical evidence like the stomach.You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach? Also even if he blocked blows there would be bruising.
There may have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Or Martin blocked/dodged the blow. It could have also hit him in an area where it left no physical evidence like the stomach.[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]
If there is no physical evidence to say that Martin was beaten or battered... then no.
EDIT: Unless of course Zimmerman hits like an absolute b*tch and did no damage whatsoever even with the leading blow.
Hubadubalubahu
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
You can get hit in the stomach and it leave no physical evidence. Have you never been in a fight?Or Martin blocked/dodged the blow. It could have also hit him in an area where it left no physical evidence like the stomach.[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]
If there is no physical evidence to say that Martin was beaten or battered... then no.
EDIT: Unless of course Zimmerman hits like an absolute b*tch and did no damage whatsoever even with the leading blow.
Hubadubalubahu
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
What the hell is that guy doing to that cat in your signature?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]You're missing the point. Just because evidence is better for the defense doesn't mean that this evidence is more consistent with Zimmerman's account than other potential accounts for what happened. The prosecution has a very high burden of proof to meet. It has to prove second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence, on its face, creates a reasonable doubt. That's not to say this evidence is any more consistent with Zimmerman's account, but the fact that it is consistent with Zimmerman's account is much better for the defense than it is for the state, even though there are other scenarios that are just as plausible that would make Zimmerman guilty, the fact that Zimmerman's own account is plausible is a plus for him and it hurts the prosecution. Not because his account is more likely, but because his account is a valid interpretation of the facts. Actually, that's exactly what it means. If the evidence is better for the defense, that means it is more consistent with their story. That evidence doesn't put doubt into the equation, it actually corroborates what he said. Now, of course more evidence can be released and it certainly isn't definitive proof, but it absolutely at this point is more consistent with the defense, which is what both analyst were agreeing on. If it were Zimmerman with bloody knuckles and Martin with a broken nose, you can bet that analyst would be saying the exact opposite. Now you're just repeating yourself. Again, just because this evidence on its face is better for the defense than it is for the state does not mean that Zimmerman's account is more consistent with the evidence than It absolutely does put doubt into the equation. The prosecution is giving one narrative, and this evidence allows for a plausible alternative. Nothing about this evidence suggests that Zimmerman's account is more plausible, but the mere fact that it is plausible is much better for the defense than it would be for the prosecution.[QUOTE="Renevent42"] If he thinks the evidence is better for the defense, which account/story do you think he believes it's more consistent with? Either way, your initial comment: "Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman." Is totally inconsistent with what what he was saying. He clearly believes the evidence is better for the defense, not with the prosecution's story. C'mon man...don't be ridiculous.Renevent42
All the defense is hoping for is that by the end of the trial we have no definitive idea as to what happened, not that they are able to prove Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's burden of proof is exponentially lower than the prosecution's. All Zimmerman has to show is that he had a reasonable fear for his life and this case won't even go before a jury.
You're putting words in this legal analyst's mouth that he never said.
...I heard it was really done by the One-Armed Man....There may have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
sonicare
[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Nuck81"]Unfortunately, we can not get Martins side of what led to the initial confrontation.Nuck81That's true, but there are many pieces of evidence and if they all point clearly to how things went down, we really don't need it. Just like you don't need a murder victim's story to successfully prosecute someone, you can of course use evidence to clear your name. True. But Zimmerman has a criminal record that includes assaulting officers and domestic abuse. He is also known as having the personality of a wannabe cop and being extremely aggressive. I'm sure his psych profile will play a large part in the case. Likewise Martin has a history of being suspended for drugs and being caught with woman's jewelry and burglary devices.
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] Or Martin blocked/dodged the blow. It could have also hit him in an area where it left no physical evidence like the stomach.KC_Hokie
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
What the hell is that guy doing to that cat in your signature?I think he is blowing on the cats belly and for some reason sort of folding/bending the cat.
What the hell is that guy doing to that cat in your signature?[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
Hubadubalubahu
I think he is blowing on the cats belly and for some reason sort of folding/bending the cat.
lol...is that from a mental institution?Actually, that's exactly what it means. If the evidence is better for the defense, that means it is more consistent with their story. That evidence doesn't put doubt into the equation, it actually corroborates what he said. Now, of course more evidence can be released and it certainly isn't definitive proof, but it absolutely at this point is more consistent with the defense, which is what both analyst were agreeing on. If it were Zimmerman with bloody knuckles and Martin with a broken nose, you can bet that analyst would be saying the exact opposite. Now you're just repeating yourself. Again, just because this evidence on its face is better for the defense than it is for the state does not mean that Zimmerman's account is more consistent with the evidence than It absolutely does put doubt into the equation. The prosecution is giving one narrative, and this evidence allows for a plausible alternative. Nothing about this evidence suggests that Zimmerman's account is more plausible, but the mere fact that it is plausible is much better for the defense than it would be for the prosecution.[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]You're missing the point. Just because evidence is better for the defense doesn't mean that this evidence is more consistent with Zimmerman's account than other potential accounts for what happened. The prosecution has a very high burden of proof to meet. It has to prove second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence, on its face, creates a reasonable doubt. That's not to say this evidence is any more consistent with Zimmerman's account, but the fact that it is consistent with Zimmerman's account is much better for the defense than it is for the state, even though there are other scenarios that are just as plausible that would make Zimmerman guilty, the fact that Zimmerman's own account is plausible is a plus for him and it hurts the prosecution. Not because his account is more likely, but because his account is a valid interpretation of the facts.
-Sun_Tzu-
All the defense is hoping for is that by the end of the trial we have no definitive idea as to what happened, not that they are able to prove Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's burden of proof is exponentially lower than the prosecution's. All Zimmerman has to show is that he had a reasonable fear for his life and this case won't even go before a jury.
You're putting words in this legal analyst's mouth that he never said.
You started out by saying the article says the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to escape...those were your exact words:
"Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman."
That's not what the article said at all, the article (well the analysts) in fact believes the evidence will help the defense, not the prosecution. It's pretty clear which narrative the analysts believe the evidence is consistent with, how can you even argue otherwise? Even if you don't want to take that obvious jump, your initial statement is still categorically false as that's not what the article or the analysts says.
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] Or Martin blocked/dodged the blow. It could have also hit him in an area where it left no physical evidence like the stomach.Nuck81
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
You can get hit in the stomach and it leave no physical evidence. Have you never been in a fight?Have you? I know certain parts of the body bruise easier than others but you would be hard pressed to find no bruises on someone who had been in a scuffle, let alone received the leading blow. Even if he attempted to block his assault he would have some sort of bruising on his arms. This is a very silly argument.
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]What the hell is that guy doing to that cat in your signature? KC_Hokie
I think he is blowing on the cats belly and for some reason sort of folding/bending the cat.
lol...is that from a mental institution?We can only hope...
I don't disagree, but the fact remains that a 17 year old kid is dead.Nuck81that's undoubtedly true...and while that's sad on some level...age doesn't necessarily mean innocence...while I'm not condoning the actions of Zimmerman...I'm also not saying that Martin didn't add to his own troubles in this case.....
You can get hit in the stomach and it leave no physical evidence. Have you never been in a fight?[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]
You don't think the autopsy covered his stomach?
Hubadubalubahu
Have you? I know certain parts of the body bruise easier than others but you would be hard pressed to find no bruises on someone who had been in a scuffle, let alone received the leading blow. Even if he attempted to block his assault he would have some sort of bruising on his arms. This is a very silly argument.
Yes I have. I have an older brother and we got quite good at beating the piss out of each other without leaving any marks for mom or dad to see. Actually our only rule was no hits to the face. I have taken and given countless hits to the stomach that did no more than knock the wind out of us. You can also block or dodge swings without leaving a bruise. It's not hard to figure out.[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Nuck81"]Well then, if they are wearing a hoodie, lets just go shoot everyone that has been suspended for having an empty marijuana bag.Nuck81C'mon...you're smarter than that. Zimmerman had no idea of Martins past. All he saw was a black kid in a hoodie in his neighborhood. It was Zimmerman that went looking for Martin.
Likewise Zimmerman's past isn't just assaulting random black kids in hoodies. With that said, the fact Martin was found with woman's jewelry and burglary devices in past could indicate that maybe Martin was up to no good, and that Zimmerman's initial impressions of him weren't too far off.
The point is, they both have checkered pasts...and I'm guessing this situation didn't occur because Martin was wearing a hoodie or because of some incident Zimmerman was involved in years ago.
I'm also not saying that Martin didn't add to his own troubles in this case.....Omni-SlashHow? Martins past is irrelevant since it had no bearing on the situation. Zimmerman had no idea who Martin was or what kind of trouble he had been in before. All Zimmerman knew was that there was a black kid in a hoodie walking through the neighborhood. Is it a crime to walk through a neighborhood in a hoodie? Zimmerman's responsiblilty was to notify the police of a suspicious individual, at no point in a neighborhood watch are you to approach or attempt to apprehend anyone. Zimmerman wanted to play cop and went looking for Martin at his own admission. At the very LEAST this is manslaughter, as it was Zimmermans aggression that caused a confrontation since at no point was Martin looking for Zimmerman in order to beat him up.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Now you're just repeating yourself. Again, just because this evidence on its face is better for the defense than it is for the state does not mean that Zimmerman's account is more consistent with the evidence than It absolutely does put doubt into the equation. The prosecution is giving one narrative, and this evidence allows for a plausible alternative. Nothing about this evidence suggests that Zimmerman's account is more plausible, but the mere fact that it is plausible is much better for the defense than it would be for the prosecution.[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Actually, that's exactly what it means. If the evidence is better for the defense, that means it is more consistent with their story. That evidence doesn't put doubt into the equation, it actually corroborates what he said. Now, of course more evidence can be released and it certainly isn't definitive proof, but it absolutely at this point is more consistent with the defense, which is what both analyst were agreeing on. If it were Zimmerman with bloody knuckles and Martin with a broken nose, you can bet that analyst would be saying the exact opposite.Renevent42
All the defense is hoping for is that by the end of the trial we have no definitive idea as to what happened, not that they are able to prove Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's burden of proof is exponentially lower than the prosecution's. All Zimmerman has to show is that he had a reasonable fear for his life and this case won't even go before a jury.
You're putting words in this legal analyst's mouth that he never said.
You started out by saying the article says the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to escape...those were your exact words: "Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman. " That's not what the article said at all, the article (well the analysts) in fact believes the evidence will help the defense, not the prosecution. It's pretty clear which narrative the analysts believe the evidence is consistent with, how can you even argue that? Even if you don't want to take that obvious jump, your initial statement is still categorically false as that's not what the article or the analysts says. For the third time now - evidence being better for the defense does not mean that this evidence is any more consistent with Zimmerman's account than a scenario where Martin is trying to escape or defend himself from Zimmerman. I really don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this simple distinction. Yes, it is very clear what narratives the analyst believes the evidence is consistent with. He believes it is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman, and that it is also consistent with Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense. He does not say that either case is more consistent than the other, and it is that fact alone is why this evidence is better for the defense. All this evidence does is show that Zimmerman's account is plausible, and that's what's good for the defense and what is bad for the prosecution. Nothing about this evidence validates one account of events over another.
bu bu Treyvon was just a nice teenager buying Skittles
[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Now you're just repeating yourself. Again, just because this evidence on its face is better for the defense than it is for the state does not mean that Zimmerman's account is more consistent with the evidence than It absolutely does put doubt into the equation. The prosecution is giving one narrative, and this evidence allows for a plausible alternative. Nothing about this evidence suggests that Zimmerman's account is more plausible, but the mere fact that it is plausible is much better for the defense than it would be for the prosecution.You started out by saying the article says the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to escape...those were your exact words: "Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman. " That's not what the article said at all, the article (well the analysts) in fact believes the evidence will help the defense, not the prosecution. It's pretty clear which narrative the analysts believe the evidence is consistent with, how can you even argue that? Even if you don't want to take that obvious jump, your initial statement is still categorically false as that's not what the article or the analysts says. For the third time now - evidence being better for the defense does not mean that this evidence is any more consistent with Zimmerman's account than a scenario where Martin is trying to escape or defend himself from Zimmerman. I really don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this simple distinction. Yes, it is very clear what narratives the analyst believes the evidence is consistent with. He believes it is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman, and that it is also consistent with Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense. He does not say that either case is more consistent than the other, and it is that fact alone is why this evidence is better for the defense. All this evidence does is show that Zimmerman's account is plausible, and that's what's good for the defense and what is bad for the prosecution. Nothing about this evidence validates one account of events over another.All the defense is hoping for is that by the end of the trial we have no definitive idea as to what happened, not that they are able to prove Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's burden of proof is exponentially lower than the prosecution's. All Zimmerman has to show is that he had a reasonable fear for his life and this case won't even go before a jury.
You're putting words in this legal analyst's mouth that he never said.
-Sun_Tzu-
Of course it does...he flat out said (1:02):
"It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self defense because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin"
You are wrong, it's clear why he believes the evidence is better for the defense. He of course (being a smart person presuambly) knows there could be other explanations, but it's clear why he thinks it better for the defense. What you said and what the article (analyst) said are totally off.
bu bu Treyvon was just a nice teenager buying Skittles
ZombieKiller7
lol what is up with people saying they would fight with someone with a gun? How stupid is that? I'd run...
guess I wasn't being a bigot after all...
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] You can get hit in the stomach and it leave no physical evidence. Have you never been in a fight?Nuck81
Have you? I know certain parts of the body bruise easier than others but you would be hard pressed to find no bruises on someone who had been in a scuffle, let alone received the leading blow. Even if he attempted to block his assault he would have some sort of bruising on his arms. This is a very silly argument.
Yes I have. I have an older brother and we got quite good at beating the piss out of each other without leaving any marks for mom or dad to see. Actually our only rule was no hits to the face. I have taken and given countless hits to the stomach that did no more than knock the wind out of us. You can also block or dodge swings without leaving a bruise. It's not hard to figure out.This is not a brotherly fight. That is a terrible comparison to be basing a case off of in a trial. Also, I don't know about you, but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; even when we have no idea that we are fighting. If it was Zimmerman who assaulted him then he had the leading blow. (Also see: sucker punch.) It is not easy to dodge something you don't know is coming. But since this is the internet lets pretend that every fight is like an action movie and people just fluently block and dodge blows at will even without any sort of training or even fighting experience. Also lets assume that the only blow that hit with any force was a punch to the stomach which didn't bruise easily. We will also say that blocking a forceful blow will not cause bruising. Then we will go on the internet and discuss real life court cases with some fantasy situation in mind with no real relevance to the situation being discussed.
but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; HubadubalubahuI stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; Nuck81I stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
:lol: second Seriously, I'm not surprised. I''d thought Martin hit Zimmerman first when Zimmerman confronted him, then Zimmerman shot Martin. So Martin 's dead because of his own fault.He obviously broke his own noes then slammed Martian's fist into the ground after he shot him.
Wasdie
I stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; Renevent42
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
Zimmerman's testimony isn't exactly reliable when he is the suspect and there aren't any people who saw what happened with their eyes.
For all we know Zimmerman was punched by a ghost and Martin was in a scuffle earlier. Who knows? All we know is that we have one dead kid, one arrested guy with a gun, and one problem for the police to solve because I don't even know what to think of this case now.
[QUOTE="Renevent42"]
[QUOTE="Nuck81"] I stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.SPYDER0416
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
Zimmerman's testimony isn't exactly reliable when he is the suspect and there aren't any people who saw what happened with their eyes.
For all we know Zimmerman was punched by a ghost and Martin was in a scuffle earlier. Who knows? All we know is that we have one dead kid, one arrested guy with a gun, and one problem for the police to solve because I don't even know what to think of this case now.
Nothing to do with testimony...these were from the 9/11 tapes. There was zero mention about anything of apprehending or holding Martin for the cops. That's a huge assumption to make on Nuck's part, and to make his conclusion based on something that literally has no evidence supporting it is illogical.It would be like a Zimmerman supporter saying:
"Since Trayvon was breaking into a house when Zimmerman saw him X happened and was justified..."
I stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; Renevent42
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
Would you testify that the kid you just shot started to hit you because you grabbed at him at instigated a fight? We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, there was a confrontation, a fight, and a gunshot. The example of Zimmerman making a grab at Martin for the exact reason of holding him for the cops is a leap sure. But it's apparent that Zimmerman was waiting for the cops to arrive, was looking for Martin, and then had a confrontation.
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]
So the doctors are on his side too? Who's next?
airshocker
Are you purposefully being stupid? Should they have falsified their reports to come out on the side of Trayvon?
Why are some of you people so unwilling to think Trayvon may actually be the one who is at fault?
Maybe since 1) Zimmerman was told by the police not to follow Martin, 2) Zimmerman has lied about/twisted around his account of the story numerous times and 3) Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was "suspicious-looking," obviously having to do with his race.
I'm sorry but I see no credibility on Zimmerman's side here...
[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] I stopped reading there since I figured the rest of the post was just as dumb. Zimmerman could have grabbed Martin, shoved Martin, took a swing and missed, any number of things of which none would leave a mark on Martin. Also not everyone is a 400lb pasty weakling that bruises with the slightest touch. Since Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Martin and hold him for the cops, the most likely scenario was that he grabbed at Martins collar, shoulder, or arm, Martin pushed him off, Zimmerman got more aggressive and Martin defended himself beat Zimmermans face, Zimmerman panicked and started yelling for help and then shot Martin. But since Martin is dead, we'll never know what caused him to hit Zimmerman.Nuck81
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
Would you testify that the kid you just shot started to hit you because you grabbed at him at instigated a fight? We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, there was a confrontation, a fight, and a gunshot. The example of Zimmerman making a grab at Martin for the exact reason of holding him for the cops is a leap sure. But it's apparent that Zimmerman was waiting for the cops to arrive, was looking for Martin, and then had a confrontation.It's a huge leap, one that is not supported by any of the evidence. To use a huge unfounded leap like that as basis for a conclusion is ridiculous. Has nothing to do with his testimony either. Any number of things could have happened, but we can't just go around making things up and base our conclusions off of it.
[QUOTE="airshocker"]
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]
So the doctors are on his side too? Who's next?
Tigerman950
Are you purposefully being stupid? Should they have falsified their reports to come out on the side of Trayvon?
Why are some of you people so unwilling to think Trayvon may actually be the one who is at fault?
Maybe since 1) Zimmerman was told by the police not to follow Martin, 2) Zimmerman has lied about/twisted around his account of the story numerous times and 3) Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was "suspicious-looking," obviously having to do with his race.
I'm sorry but I see no credibility on Zimmerman's side here...
What did he lie about?I don't know how to feel about this. Martin is my age, so the thing that irked me more than anything was that Zimmerman could walk away without questioning because of 'stand your ground'. That drives me crazy, because it could have happened to any of my peers. Regardless of who struck first or what race any of them are, that is what concerned me most. That this guy could shoot this kid and walk away from the police. The media got way too caught up in the rest of it.
Would you testify that the kid you just shot started to hit you because you grabbed at him at instigated a fight? We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, there was a confrontation, a fight, and a gunshot. The example of Zimmerman making a grab at Martin for the exact reason of holding him for the cops is a leap sure. But it's apparent that Zimmerman was waiting for the cops to arrive, was looking for Martin, and then had a confrontation.[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]
I agreed with you up until the part you said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend and hold Martin for the cops...there's no evidence of that. We know he was watching him, and we know he followed him to some extent. We have no idea who approached who or who touched who first and there was zero mention in the 9/11 tapes or the police report of Zimmerman trying to apprehend or hold Martin for the cops.
Renevent42
It's a huge leap, one that is not supported by any of the evidence. To use a huge unfounded leap like that as basis for a conclusion is ridiculous. Has nothing to do with his testimony either. Any number of things could have happened, but we can't just go around making things up and base our conclusions off of it.
According to the article here Huffington Post and the tapes. It is Martin that is yelling for help before he was shot by Zimmerman, and testimony from a 911 caller that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.Also the police specifically told Zimmerman not to follow Martin
That would be concerning...that's not what happened though.I don't know how to feel about this. Martin is my age, so the thing that irked me more than anything was that Zimmerman could walk away without questioning because of 'stand your ground'. That drives me crazy, because it could have happened to any of my peers. Regardless of who struck first or what race any of them are, that is what concerned me most. That this guy could shoot this kid and walk away from the police. The media got way too caught up in the rest of it.
RandomWinner
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"][QUOTE="airshocker"]
Are you purposefully being stupid? Should they have falsified their reports to come out on the side of Trayvon?
Why are some of you people so unwilling to think Trayvon may actually be the one who is at fault?
Renevent42
Maybe since 1) Zimmerman was told by the police not to follow Martin, 2) Zimmerman has lied about/twisted around his account of the story numerous times and 3) Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was "suspicious-looking," obviously having to do with his race.
I'm sorry but I see no credibility on Zimmerman's side here...
What did he lie about?The whole ****ing story...first, in the 9-1-1 call he told police that he first encountered Martin when he followed him in his neighborhood while on watch due to suspicions, and the confrontation followed from there. Later on Zimmerman testified that he was coming out of his car and Martin took a swing at him as soon as he stepped out, which is completely different from his original accounts of the story. Now I don't know how the hell he decides to remember it.
[QUOTE="Renevent42"]
[QUOTE="Nuck81"] Would you testify that the kid you just shot started to hit you because you grabbed at him at instigated a fight? We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, there was a confrontation, a fight, and a gunshot. The example of Zimmerman making a grab at Martin for the exact reason of holding him for the cops is a leap sure. But it's apparent that Zimmerman was waiting for the cops to arrive, was looking for Martin, and then had a confrontation.Nuck81
It's a huge leap, one that is not supported by any of the evidence. To use a huge unfounded leap like that as basis for a conclusion is ridiculous. Has nothing to do with his testimony either. Any number of things could have happened, but we can't just go around making things up and base our conclusions off of it.
According to the article here Huffington Post and the tapes. It is Martin that is yelling for help before he was shot by Zimmerman, and testimony from a 911 caller that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.Number one it's inclusive who is yelling for help. Both Martin's parents as well as Zimmerman's parents say it's their son. Meanwhile, an eye witness testified that it was Zimmerman who was yelling out.
Number two, there's eye witness that saw Zimmerman on top, and that person actually saw the punching unlike the others who saw the end after Martin was shot. The lady witness actually had her testimony called into question by police after her statements did not match up with the police report.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Even without all that and assuming it was Zimmerman on top the whole time, that doesn't say who grabbed who first or that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin. Just like you say Zimmerman could have swung and missed explaining away the injuries, Marting could have jumped on him first and Zimmerman reversed the position.
What did he lie about?[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Tigerman950"]
Maybe since 1) Zimmerman was told by the police not to follow Martin, 2) Zimmerman has lied about/twisted around his account of the story numerous times and 3) Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was "suspicious-looking," obviously having to do with his race.
I'm sorry but I see no credibility on Zimmerman's side here...
Tigerman950
The whole ****ing story...first, in the 9-1-1 call he told police that he first encountered Martin when he followed him in his neighborhood while on watch due to suspicions, and the confrontation followed from there. Later on Zimmerman testified that he was coming out of his car and Martin took a swing at him as soon as he stepped out, which is completely different from his original accounts of the story. Now I don't know how the hell he decides to remember it.
Uh...I'm not seeing the discrepancy there. The 9/11 call was taking place AS IT WAS HAPPENING and he was in the car most of the time. He was off the phone with 9/11 when the fight occurred.[QUOTE="Nuck81"]According to the article here Huffington Post and the tapes. It is Martin that is yelling for help before he was shot by Zimmerman, and testimony from a 911 caller that Zimmerman was on top of Martin. Number one it's inclusive who is yelling for help. Number two, there's eye witness that saw Zimmerman on top, and that person actually saw the punching unlike the others who saw the end after Martin was shot. The lady witness actually had her testimony called into question by police after her statements did not match up with the police report. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation Even then, that doesn't say who grabbed who first or that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin. Did you even listen to the third call on that article? You can actually here Martin Cry and then the gun shot. You HEAR Martin crying for help, you HEAR the gun shot, and then you HEAR no more yelling.[QUOTE="Renevent42"]
It's a huge leap, one that is not supported by any of the evidence. To use a huge unfounded leap like that as basis for a conclusion is ridiculous. Has nothing to do with his testimony either. Any number of things could have happened, but we can't just go around making things up and base our conclusions off of it.
Renevent42
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment