Zimmerman doctor confirms broken nose, autopsy of Martin shows knuckle abrasions

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][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.Nuck81

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] What did he lie about?Renevent42

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.

Did you not read my entire post? Zimmerman claimed, on each account, that that was the first time the two interacted. Zimmerman, according to the 9-1-1 call, was following him on FOOT, but keeping a distance. He claimed that was the first and only time they interacted. Later Martin noticed and the confrontation occurred after that. But Zimmerman later said something completely different when he said their first and only confrontation was when he came out of his car and Martin struck him right then and there, initiating the struggle. Both accounts are completely different, I don't see how you could place them in successive order.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="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.

Tigerman950

Did you not read my entire post? Zimmerman claimed, on each account, that that was the first time the two interacted. Zimmerman, according to the 9-1-1 call, was following him on FOOT, but keeping a distance. He claimed that was the first and only time they interacted. Later Martin noticed and the confrontation occurred after that. But Zimmerman later said something completely different when he said their first and only confrontation was when he came out of his car and Martin struck him right then and there, initiating the struggle. Both accounts are completely different, I don't see how you could place them in successive order.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="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.

Tigerman950

Did you not read my entire post? Zimmerman claimed, on each account, that that was the first time the two interacted. Zimmerman, according to the 9-1-1 call, was following him on FOOT, but keeping a distance. He claimed that was the first and only time they interacted. Later Martin noticed and the confrontation occurred after that. But Zimmerman later said something completely different when he said their first and only confrontation was when he came out of his car and Martin struck him right then and there, initiating the struggle. Both accounts are completely different, I don't see how you could place them in successive order.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] 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.Nuck81

Yes the person is yelling for help, but you are assuming it's Trayvon yelling. You don't know that. More over, you also have another EYE WITNESS testimony that it was Trayvon on top, with Zimmerman yelling for help.

And if it was that way the reason is obvious...you are getting your ass handed to you and yelling for help...after you shoot that person you are no longer getting your ass handed to you and no longer need to yell for help.

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Uh...I'm not seeing the discrepancy there. The 9/11 call was taking place AS IT WAS HAPPENING. He was off the phone with 9/11 when the fight occurred.Renevent42

Did you not read my entire post? Zimmerman claimed, on each account, that that was the first time the two interacted. Zimmerman, according to the 9-1-1 call, was following him on FOOT, but keeping a distance. He claimed that was the first and only time they interacted. Later Martin noticed and the confrontation occurred after that. But Zimmerman later said something completely different when he said their first and only confrontation was when he came out of his car and Martin struck him right then and there, initiating the struggle. Both accounts are completely different, I don't see how you could place them in successive order.

You idiot, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Zimmerman told two different stories to the police. That's how we know he's lying and is most likely guilty.

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.

SPYDER0416

In this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

Did you not read my entire post? Zimmerman claimed, on each account, that that was the first time the two interacted. Zimmerman, according to the 9-1-1 call, was following him on FOOT, but keeping a distance. He claimed that was the first and only time they interacted. Later Martin noticed and the confrontation occurred after that. But Zimmerman later said something completely different when he said their first and only confrontation was when he came out of his car and Martin struck him right then and there, initiating the struggle. Both accounts are completely different, I don't see how you could place them in successive order.

Tigerman950

You idiot, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Zimmerman told two different stories to the police. That's how we know he's lying and is most likely guilty.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Renevent42"] You're kidding right? Or being intentionally obtuse because it hurts your argument? It's in the official transcript that the voice is yelling for help, and then no just before the shot. Also we don't know what Martins voice sounds like, but the first call is Zimmerman and that voice that yells no sure doesn't sound like him. Why would Zimmerman yell no in that kind of voice just before he pulled the trigger? That is a panicked, frightened, desperate cry. The kind of cry someone makes as they are looking at a gun pointed at them just before they know they are about to die.Renevent42

I mis-understood what you said I thought you meant the transcript has Martin as the person yelling for help...that's not the case.

Yes the person is yelling for help, but you are assuming it's Trayvon yelling. You don't know that. More over, you also have another EYE WITNESS testimony that it was Trayvon on top, with Zimmerman yelling for help during the actual scuffle.

And if it was that way the reason is obvious...you are getting your ass handed to you and yelling for help...after you shoot that person you are no longer getting your ass handed to you and no longer need to yell for help.

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

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 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.

Renevent42

Then what happened? The police came and they didn't take Zimmerman into custody. What am I missing.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

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 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

Then what happened? The police came and they didn't take Zimmerman into custody. What am I missing.

There's a video of Zimmerman actually being taken into the polic station...

[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I'm not following you...when was the first interaction? Zimmerman following at a distance?Renevent42

You idiot, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Zimmerman told two different stories to the police. That's how we know he's lying and is most likely guilty.

He DIDN'T go back to his vehicle after following him on foot, he continued pacing toward him just like he told the police (although they told him not to while on the phone with him). A confrontation followed and Zimmerman shot Martin. This is what he told the police at first. Following so far?

Later on, he told the police that he NEVER followed/stalked Martin in his neighborhood, but that Zimmerman was minding his own business and stepped out of his car when Martin attacked him first. That led to a confrontation and Martin's eventual death.

Make sense now? Two stories contradicting stories from one person. It's really not that hard to follow.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Tigerman950"]

You idiot, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Zimmerman told two different stories to the police. That's how we know he's lying and is most likely guilty.

Tigerman950

He DIDN'T go back to his vehicle after following him on foot, he continued pacing toward him just like he told the police (although they told him not to while on the phone with him). A confrontation followed and Zimmerman shot Martin. This is what he told the police at first. Following so far?

Later on, he told the police that he NEVER followed/stalked Martin in his neighborhood, but that Zimmerman was minding his own business and stepped out of his car when Martin attacked him first. That led to a confrontation and Martin's eventual death.

Make sense now? Two stories contradicting stories from one person. It's really not that hard to follow.

Oh you are confused...he didn't say that. He was clearly following Martin it's in the 9/11 tapes where exactly did he say he wasn't watching Martin?

On the night of the shooting, and afterwards, Zimmerman described in detail, for the police and others, what took place. [122][131][132][133] Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk. Zimmerman therefore called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior and summon police.[134][135] Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out," then he commented that Martin "ran." [10] While still on the phone with the dispatcher, Zimmerman parked his vehicle and followed Martin on foot.[131] Confirming that Zimmerman was following Martin, the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away. [10] The call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle, when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.[131][132] According to Zimmerman's father, Martin asked Zimmerman, "Do you have a **** problem?" Zimmerman replied "No, I don't have a problem", and while Zimmerman reached for his cell phone Martin said, "Well, you do now" or something similar,[122][132] then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk.[131][132] Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams.[131][132] According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of Youre gonna die now or Youre gonna die tonight and continued to beat Zimmerman.[122] Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.[131][132][133][Note 4]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]but not everyone in this world is some amazing fighter and just dodges blows at will; Nuck81

We are talking about two people of average weight here. Or wait, maybe that was your attempt to make a personal attack on me and further diverge from the actual situation being discussed. You have a baseless story of what happened here. And if Martin isn't a "400lb patsy' and isnt a weakling who bruises then why did his knuckles bruise when he hit Zimmerman. However when blocking Zimmermans assault/hypothetical stomach punch you brought up, his arms do not bruise. But keep appealing to emotion and trying to challenge evidence with unrealistic hypotheticals based on you and your siblings scuffles.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Renevent42"] 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. Renevent42

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.

You're the one putting words in his mouth. He's not saying one account is more accurate than the other. For the fourth time now, just because the evidence is more beneficial for the defense than it is for the state, does not mean that this evidence makes it anymore likely that Zimmerman's story is accurate over the prosecution's. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I don't understand what you don't understand.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] 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. -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.

You're the one putting words in his mouth. He's not saying one account is more accurate than the other. For the fourth time now, just because the evidence is more beneficial for the defense than it is for the state, does not mean that this evidence makes it anymore likely that Zimmerman's story is accurate over the prosecution's. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I don't understand what you don't understand.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

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.

Renevent42

You're the one putting words in his mouth. He's not saying one account is more accurate than the other. For the fourth time now, just because the evidence is more beneficial for the defense than it is for the state, does not mean that this evidence makes it anymore likely that Zimmerman's story is accurate over the prosecution's. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I don't understand what you don't understand.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I'm only repeating what the analyst said. "It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin...It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself."

You're the one putting words in his mouth. He's not saying one account is more accurate than the other. For the fourth time now, just because the evidence is more beneficial for the defense than it is for the state, does not mean that this evidence makes it anymore likely that Zimmerman's story is accurate over the prosecution's. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I don't understand what you don't understand.

-Sun_Tzu-

You know what's funny about this? You were the one actually to claim which story it's consistent with in the first place. You say one thing, and then argue against your own statements later on. I mean, this is your first statement:

"Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman. "

You twisted the main ideas and the weight of the commentary given in the article. The article never gives the impression that's what the evidence is consistent with...at BEST it gives it as an alternative scenario, with the analyst clearly believing the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's story and believing it is helpful to the defense.

So now acting like that wasn't your point...you flat out said which side the article says the evidence is consistent with. Then, you turn around and start arguing for pages how the guy never said that this evidence shows that one story is more likely than the other. F'ing hilarious.

The kicker is the reality is he does indicate which side is more likely, considering he gives his opinion that it goes along with what Zimmerman said and is obviously more helpful for the defense lol.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] You are so grasping at straws...he flat out says it goes along with what Zimmerman says and thinks the evidence is clearly better for the defense. Then he adds it could be Trayvon trying to get away...as a different possible solution. Also, he says that after a break you don't know what preceded that thought anyways could have been a completely different statement. However, he clearly gave which story it goes along with and which side of the case it benefits. Offering a separate possible explanation doesn't mean you don't that evidence isn't consistent with one side though. Of course there's other possible scenarios, but at this point it's pretty clear which side of the story it is consistent with and which side of the isle it's going to benefit in court. You are acting like a bone head at this point...the article/video couldn't have been any clearer. Anyways I don't even think it's consistent with Martin trying to get away...that doesn't even make sense. An eye witness place Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him...if he wanted to get away all he would have to do is get off of him and walk away. With that said I don't think the fact Martin was winning the fight means Zimmerman automatically is innocent...but the idea that busted knuckles and the other persons fact smashed up is consistent trying to get away is silly. It may be consistent with Trayvon fighting back after being attacked by Zimmerman, but not him trying to get away.Renevent42

When did I ever say that this evidence wasn't consistent with Zimmerman's story? Now not only have you put words in the legal analyst's mouth but now you are putting words in my mouth. The only position I have taken on this matter throughout this discussion is that this evidence doesn't tell us anything as to what actually happens and only confirms that a physical confrontation took place as well as the extent of the injuries. I only said "Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman." in response to your post where you seemed to have implied that if Martin were alive he would somehow be unable to give an account of his own that is consistent with the evidence.

-Sun_Tzu-

Wow that's not what I was saying what-so-ever...you totally misunderstood me.

This is what I said:

I think you misunderstood his point. He didn't say it tells the whole story, just that it's more reliable than witnesses. Both would have their story, the evidence is what corroborates the stories. They can make people into liars, show someone is telling the truth, ect.

Let's say Martin survived and said Zimmerman just starting kicking his arse for no reason then shot him. Well, the evidence show that Martin was the one with busted up knuckles not Zimmerman. It also shows Zimmerman having head wounds and a broken nose...the evidence would not substantiate his story.

me

I merely said physical evidence, while doesn't tell the whole story, can corroborate (or go against) witness testimony and gave an example how that contradiction in evidence vs testimony would look like as a simple made-up example.

They you cherry picked a line out of the whole article, which makes very clear what the analyst thinks, and flat out said it's:

Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman.you

I mean, what tricks you going to do for us next dude?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] You know what's funny about this? You were the one actually to claim which story it's consistent with in the first place. You say one thing, and then argue against your own statements later on. I mean, this is your first statement: "Per the article linked, the evidence is consistent with Martin trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman. " You twisted the main ideas in the article. The article never gives the impression that's what the evidence is consistent with...at BEST it gives it as an alternative scenario, with the analyst clearly believing the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's story and believing it is helpful to the defense. That wasn't your point...you flat out said which side the article says the evidence is consistent with. Then, you turn around and start arguing for pages how the guy never said that this evidence shows that one story is more likely than the other. F'ing hilarious. The reality he does indicate which side is more likely, considering he gives his opinion that it goes along with what Zimmerman said and is obviously more helpful for the defense lol.Renevent42

>You provide a scenario where Martin's hypothetical account is inconsistent with the evidence

>I reply, by referencing the article, that Martin could easily provide an account of events that is consistent with the evidence

>You go on to put words in the legal analyst's mouth, words in my mouth and fail to grasp the crucial yet simple distinction between evidence being beneficial to a defendents case and evidence that is more consistent with one scenario over another (a distinction I have explained four times in this thread)

My very first post in this thread was "This doesn't really tell us much."

I never said that this evidence supports one account of events over another - something you however have tried to claim this evidence does. For the fifth (and last) time, the reason why this evidence benefits the defense is because it is merely consistent with Zimmerman's account. It does not prove that Zimmerman's account is accurate (nor does it prove that the prosecution's account is accurate, although this evidence is not inconsistent with their account either), but the reason why it is beneficial to Zimmerman is because it makes it that much harder for the prosecution to meet it's burden of proof. Sure, the state can still argue that Martin was trying to get away or defend himself from Zimmerman, but it is reasonable to doubt this narrative because it is just as likely, based on this evidence, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Not only that, but in light of this evidence, Zimmerman can reasonably argue before the judge that his life was in danger, and in the process cite this evidence to support his argument, and the charges would be dropped before even going to trial, because of the stand your ground law. Zimmerman's burden of proof is much lower than that of the state's.

Sun-Tzu...you are arguing against an idea I never made. The example was to just demonstrate how evidence can contradict testimony...I never once said Martin couldn't have provided evidence to support his side. Not a single solitary time. You totally misunderstood what the example was for.

I even made the example ridiculous and clearly not based on the actual case to be obvious...guess I wasn't obvious enough.

Sun-Tzu...you are arguing against an idea I never made. The example was to just demonstrate how evidence can contradict testimony...I never once said Martin couldn't have provided evidence to support his side. Not a single solitary time. You totally misunderstood what the example was for.

I even made the example ridiculous and clearly not based on the actual case to be obvious...guess I wasn't obvious enough,

Renevent42

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

Sun-Tzu...you are arguing against an idea I never made. The example was to just demonstrate how evidence can contradict testimony...I never once said Martin couldn't have provided evidence to support his side. Not a single solitary time. You totally misunderstood what the example was for.

I even made the example ridiculous and clearly not based on the actual case to be obvious...guess I wasn't obvious enough,

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]

Sun-Tzu...you are arguing against an idea I never made. The example was to just demonstrate how evidence can contradict testimony...I never once said Martin couldn't have provided evidence to support his side. Not a single solitary time. You totally misunderstood what the example was for.

I even made the example ridiculous and clearly not based on the actual case to be obvious...guess I wasn't obvious enough,

Renevent42

But whatever, I'm not going to argue about an argument.