George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?

Another eye witness places Zimmerman on top. Now, in the interview she didn't call Zimmerman by name, because of course that night she didn't know the names. In a video interview describing that night she described "a larger man on top" (Police report had Zimmerman @ 200 lbs and Martin's autopsy weight was 158 lbs). She was watching when the shot was fired and then this "larger man" got up and began walking around. Since Martin was on the ground, the person that rose was then of course Zimmerman.


>>>>

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Where the position of Martin and Zimmerman would be important would be as it pertains to Florida Law 776.041 which removes the self-defense immunity from a person if they were the initial aggressor in a confrontation. **IF** the forensics were to show that Zimmerman had created separation from Martin and did not attempt to disengage, but instead drew his weapon and fired - then Zimmerman could still be held responsible for an illegal killing. (Although IMHO, Murder 2 is an overcharge.)


Zimmerman's booking height was 5'8", Martins autopsy was 71" (5'11").


Serious question, how would the forensics show who was on top when the shot was fired? Lack of GSR on Zimmerman? Lack of blood/DNA on Zimmerman? The bullet remained in the chest cavity, if it was a pass through and had lodged in the ground that would have shown Martin on the bottom or if it had passed through and lodged in a building or couldn't be found that would indicate an upward shot with Martin on top. Again, serious question.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
To allege that scenario is beyond absurd.
If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.

Actually the scenario would be that Zimmerman as a wannabe cop --- frustrated with the burglaries in the area and having a past episode where he called the police on a suspicious person and the police didn't arrive until after person had departed --- was in a mindset where he was not going to allow that to happen again. As a result he threatened and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin. Now you have an unknown individual in a vehicle that follows you, exits the vehicle and pursues you on foot, then confronts you and grabs you means that Martin would have felt threatened and would have been justified in using force to try to get away from this unknown individual.

Given Zimmerman's actions that night, it is a possible scenario and it would make sense. However making sense and the police being able to prove it are two different things --- the evidence available to the public does not provide conclusive proof.



>>>>

 

[Inthemiddle]

Is yo family too po to buy ya some desperately needed IQ points? No one is denying any antecedents. So, mind your own Ps and Qs.

P and Q.

If a person (tells the exact same story using the exact same words every time) then (it's probably a lie).

Zimmerman is NOT (telling the exact same story using the exact same words every time).

Therefore, Zimmerman is NOT (lying)

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Againsheila makes two assertions:
1) Repeating the same words suggests lying.
2) Using different words suggests telling the truth. ("Fact: using different words is an example of telling the truth, beeatch!")

Againsheila then reaches this logical conclusion:
Zimmerman used different words which suggests he's telling the truth.

Neither 1 or 2 is an antecedent of the other. Assertion 1 is superfluous to the conclusion.

Perhaps you have a logic comprehension problem. At best, you're saying that she made one unsubstantiated claim, and one irrelevant claim. But clearly, she was attempting to make a hypothetical syllogism.

 

[Emma]

Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Autopsy says Martin is 5'11" and 158 lb. Zimmerman tells detective that he is 5'8" and 194 lbs.

 

[Inthemiddle]

PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.

But you ignore the very sensical possibility that an overzealous Zimmerman could have tried to physically detain Martin, waiting for the police. This would be enough to justify a defensive reaction by Martin.

If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.

The scenario of Martin attacking Zimmerman doesn't make sense at all. But you embrace it willingly.

 

[Ariux]

Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Like a fat Hispanic would assault a strange, hooded Afro who is six inches taller. That boggles the mind... but racist Trayvon supporters have shit for brains, so they don't have minds, no mind to be boggled. Before the shooting, Zimmerman would have bet money that the Afro was high on drugs and had a knife, let alone Trayvon being six inches taller and having the Afro physic which is nature-made for fighting.

The Afro skull is so thick that you can't beat any sense into the tiny skull inside of it. That's why Afros dominate boxing.

 

[Ariux]

P and Q.

If a person (tells the exact same story using the exact same words every time) then (it's probably a lie).

Zimmerman is NOT (telling the exact same story using the exact same words every time).

Therefore, Zimmerman is NOT (lying)

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Againsheila makes two assertions:
1) Repeating the same words suggests lying.
2) Using different words suggests telling the truth. ("Fact: using different words is an example of telling the truth, beeatch!")

Againsheila then reaches this logical conclusion:
Zimmerman used different words which suggests he's telling the truth.

Neither 1 or 2 is an antecedent of the other. Assertion 1 is superfluous to the conclusion.

Perhaps you have a logic comprehension problem. At best, you're saying that she made one unsubstantiated claim, and one irrelevant claim. But clearly, she was attempting to make a hypothetical syllogism.

In a casual internet forum such as this one, one of the most desperate responses is try to make an issue that a claim is unsubstantiated. You might as well just call yourself a loser.

But, she did substantiate it with an appeal to common knowledge, granted that's something shitheads often lack. The proper disagreement is either explain that the fact is irrelevant or to say something along the lines of "Is not!" Either of you may then escalate the debate by trying to put more substance behind your assertions. Maybe you really aren't so lacking in common knowledge, and that's why you chose a tact other other than "Is not!" But, that also failed you.

One assertion she made was irrelevant to her conclusion. But, the assertion was part of a relevant reply, in disagreeing with your shit-brained belief that Zimmerman stating the same thing in two different ways indicated a lie.... a point I've already easily refuted you on.

Here's some advice: you want people to think you're smart. You're not going to accomplish that by trying to defend absurdities. In this case, your absurdity is that Zimmerman didn't shoot in self-defense.

 

[Againsheila]

Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?

Another eye witness places Zimmerman on top. Now, in the interview she didn't call Zimmerman by name, because of course that night she didn't know the names. In a video interview describing that night she described "a larger man on top" (Police report had Zimmerman @ 200 lbs and Martin's autopsy weight was 158 lbs). She was watching when the shot was fired and then this "larger man" got up and began walking around. Since Martin was on the ground, the person that rose was then of course Zimmerman.


>>>>

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Interesting that as this goes on, Martin is getting shorter and Zimmerman is getting thinner.

 

[Againsheila]

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Againsheila makes two assertions:
1) Repeating the same words suggests lying.
2) Using different words suggests telling the truth. ("Fact: using different words is an example of telling the truth, beeatch!")

Againsheila then reaches this logical conclusion:
Zimmerman used different words which suggests he's telling the truth.

Neither 1 or 2 is an antecedent of the other. Assertion 1 is superfluous to the conclusion.

Perhaps you have a logic comprehension problem. At best, you're saying that she made one unsubstantiated claim, and one irrelevant claim. But clearly, she was attempting to make a hypothetical syllogism.

In a casual internet forum such as this one, one of the most desperate responses is try to make an issue that a claim is unsubstantiated. You might as well just call yourself a loser.

But, she did substantiate it with an appeal to common knowledge, granted that's something shitheads often lack. The proper disagreement is either explain that the fact is irrelevant or to say something along the lines of "Is not!" Either of you may then escalate the debate by trying to put more substance behind your assertions. Maybe you really aren't so lacking in common knowledge, and that's why you chose a tact other other than "Is not!" But, that also failed you.

One assertion she made was irrelevant to her conclusion. But, the assertion was part of a relevant reply, in disagreeing with your shit-brained belief that Zimmerman stating the same thing in two different ways indicated a lie.... a point I've already easily refuted you on.

Here's some advice: you want people to think you're smart. You're not going to accomplish that by trying to defend absurdities. In this case, your absurdity is that Zimmerman didn't shoot in self-defense.

Don't worry about it, I ignored "notinthemiddle" awhile ago, he/she can say "is not" all he/she wants, I'm not listening. I tend to ignore people when the debate degenerates to the point that I can't learn anything and only get annoyed at their posts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Another eye witness places Zimmerman on top. Now, in the interview she didn't call Zimmerman by name, because of course that night she didn't know the names. In a video interview describing that night she described "a larger man on top" (Police report had Zimmerman @ 200 lbs and Martin's autopsy weight was 158 lbs). She was watching when the shot was fired and then this "larger man" got up and began walking around. Since Martin was on the ground, the person that rose was then of course Zimmerman.


>>>>

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Interesting that as this goes on, Martin is getting shorter and Zimmerman is getting thinner.

The physical characteristics for Martin are 71 inches (5'11") @ 158 lbs per the autopsy report.

Police report from the night of the event has Zimmerman @200 lbs. Six weeks later at his booking information from the police was 5'8" @185lbs (and his lawyer said he'd lost weight due to the stress).



You disagree with the coroner and the police?



>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Interesting that as this goes on, Martin is getting shorter and Zimmerman is getting thinner.

The physical characteristics for Martin are 71 inches (5'11") @ 158 lbs per the autopsy report.

Police report from the night of the event has Zimmerman @200 lbs. Six weeks later at his booking information from the police was 5'8" @185lbs (and his lawyer said he'd lost weight due to the stress).



You disagree with the coroner and the police?



>>>>

Who am I to disagree, I'm just making a point that the story keeps changing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Another eye witness places Zimmerman on top. Now, in the interview she didn't call Zimmerman by name, because of course that night she didn't know the names. In a video interview describing that night she described "a larger man on top" (Police report had Zimmerman @ 200 lbs and Martin's autopsy weight was 158 lbs). She was watching when the shot was fired and then this "larger man" got up and began walking around. Since Martin was on the ground, the person that rose was then of course Zimmerman.


>>>>

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Where the position of Martin and Zimmerman would be important would be as it pertains to Florida Law 776.041 which removes the self-defense immunity from a person if they were the initial aggressor in a confrontation. **IF** the forensics were to show that Zimmerman had created separation from Martin and did not attempt to disengage, but instead drew his weapon and fired - then Zimmerman could still be held responsible for an illegal killing. (Although IMHO, Murder 2 is an overcharge.)


Zimmerman's booking height was 5'8", Martins autopsy was 71" (5'11").


Serious question, how would the forensics show who was on top when the shot was fired? Lack of GSR on Zimmerman? Lack of blood/DNA on Zimmerman? The bullet remained in the chest cavity, if it was a pass through and had lodged in the ground that would have shown Martin on the bottom or if it had passed through and lodged in a building or couldn't be found that would indicate an upward shot with Martin on top. Again, serious question.


>>>>

Initial aggressor is PHYSICAL CONTACT.
Following someone is not initial aggressor. Yelling at someone is also not.

 

[Gadawg73]

PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
To allege that scenario is beyond absurd.
If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.

Actually the scenario would be that Zimmerman as a wannabe cop --- frustrated with the burglaries in the area and having a past episode where he called the police on a suspicious person and the police didn't arrive until after person had departed --- was in a mindset where he was not going to allow that to happen again. As a result he threatened and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin. Now you have an unknown individual in a vehicle that follows you, exits the vehicle and pursues you on foot, then confronts you and grabs you means that Martin would have felt threatened and would have been justified in using force to try to get away from this unknown individual.

Given Zimmerman's actions that night, it is a possible scenario and it would make sense. However making sense and the police being able to prove it are two different things --- the evidence available to the public does not provide conclusive proof.



>>>>

"mindset" is rank speculation, never admissable.
Everythin you post that follows that is also rank speculation.
Confronts is not aggressive under the law.
If Martin was getting away he would have outrun Zimmerman all day, every day.
That is what he should have done but didn't. He confronted Zimmerman and the tragedy followed.
But it is not murder. Manslaughter case from the get go.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot.
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.

Where the position of Martin and Zimmerman would be important would be as it pertains to Florida Law 776.041 which removes the self-defense immunity from a person if they were the initial aggressor in a confrontation. **IF** the forensics were to show that Zimmerman had created separation from Martin and did not attempt to disengage, but instead drew his weapon and fired - then Zimmerman could still be held responsible for an illegal killing. (Although IMHO, Murder 2 is an overcharge.)


Zimmerman's booking height was 5'8", Martins autopsy was 71" (5'11").


Serious question, how would the forensics show who was on top when the shot was fired? Lack of GSR on Zimmerman? Lack of blood/DNA on Zimmerman? The bullet remained in the chest cavity, if it was a pass through and had lodged in the ground that would have shown Martin on the bottom or if it had passed through and lodged in a building or couldn't be found that would indicate an upward shot with Martin on top. Again, serious question.


>>>>

Initial aggressor is PHYSICAL CONTACT.
Following someone is not initial aggressor. Yelling at someone is also not.

No, PHYSICAL CONTACT is not required under Florida Law...

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
​

Conveying a threat with an act that indicates violence is imminent (as in about to occur, not has occurred).

I've never said or indicated that following someone qualifies them as an initial aggressor. Following, confronting, threatening, and/or grabbing though would. That is the standard that the prosecution will need to meet. And honestly, that kind of evidence has not been made available even if it exists.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
To allege that scenario is beyond absurd.
If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.

Actually the scenario would be that Zimmerman as a wannabe cop --- frustrated with the burglaries in the area and having a past episode where he called the police on a suspicious person and the police didn't arrive until after person had departed --- was in a mindset where he was not going to allow that to happen again. As a result he threatened and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin. Now you have an unknown individual in a vehicle that follows you, exits the vehicle and pursues you on foot, then confronts you and grabs you means that Martin would have felt threatened and would have been justified in using force to try to get away from this unknown individual.

Given Zimmerman's actions that night, it is a possible scenario and it would make sense. However making sense and the police being able to prove it are two different things --- the evidence available to the public does not provide conclusive proof.



>>>>

"mindset" is rank speculation, never admissable.
Everythin you post that follows that is also rank speculation.
Confronts is not aggressive under the law.
If Martin was getting away he would have outrun Zimmerman all day, every day.
That is what he should have done but didn't. He confronted Zimmerman and the tragedy followed.
But it is not murder. Manslaughter case from the get go.

1. Based on the lack of evidence for that critical time of initial confrontation, that "rank speculation" is as valid as those who claim without a doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman --- it's just the other side of the same speculation coin at this point.

2. Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.

3. Your statement that "he confronted Zimmerman" is also rank speculation, just the other side of the coin. Audio recordings that have been made available to the public indicate Zimmerman confronted Martin. Now whether that specific portion of the statement will be allowed in court is yet to be determined.

4. I've consistently agreed that Murder 2 appears to be an over charge because the state will have to prove "depraved disregard for human life" which is a standard I don't think they can meet.



>>>>

 

[Contumacious]

2. Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.

Yo Vern, what the fuck do you mean by he was legally allowed to be IN A GATED COMMUNITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.

Yo Vern, what the fuck do you mean by he was legally allowed to be IN A GATED COMMUNITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

He was invited the home of a resident. Residents can invite guest into the community. He was not in the community illegally, therefore he was in a place he was legally allowed to be.


BTW - names not "Vern", feel free to call me "Chief" if you need a shorter name for typing purposes.


>>>>

 

[Ariux]

He was invited the home of a resident. Residents can invite guest into the community. He was not in the community illegally, therefore he was in a place he was legally allowed to be.

Shithead, Zimmerman was there legally and every action of Zimmerman's was legal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Zimmerman was there legally

Of course he was.

and every action of Zimmerman's was legal.

That's what the courts and a jury of his peers will determine.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.