So we should take the other case at face value instead of questioning it at all? Maybe more facts will arise as time passes just as they have as time has passed in this case.
Grass stains/a *blood* nose and scalp don't mean Martin attacked Zimmerman first. You are passing off Zimmerman's word as fact AGAIN. The police report said he was "bleeding from the nose" - not that he had a broken nose. I've already gone through the bloody scalp. I've seen numerous ortho traumas come through BUMC and there's no way that picture is indicative of blunt trauma - it's just two lacerations bleeding profusely (see below); there obviously was no hematoma/contusion/fractures as he's managed to avoid treatment since the incident. (Hell he didn't even need stitches) It's not "witnesses" btw - it's one anonymous eyewitness who claims he saw Martin on top at one point from his house in the dark. Have you looked outside your house at night? It's difficult to see things at a distance clearly. It's funny because the other eye witnesses (including someone who was nearby walking their dog) state otherwise. We know Martin ran from Zimmerman in order to avoid a confrontation - Zimmerman himself confirms it. We know Zimmerman has a documented history of violence (Martin doesn't - just unconfirmed stories, never had any trouble with the police). We know Zimmerman refused to meet the police at the suggested meeting place (the mail box) and instead requested that they call him when they arrived on site. That makes it clear (to anyone reasonable) that he was still pursuing Martin after that call. We know that Zimmerman murdered Martin. We know that Martin died on a direct route to his house and that he'd done nothing to warrant being followed, chased, and then killed. You can try and twist the issue - media bias/"criminal"/Race Wars/similar or related crimes but it doesn't change what happened. Martin was murdered, and Zimmerman is on trial for committing the crime. I'm sorry that irks some of you so much. It's telling when a blatant bigot is the only one agreeing with a (very small) subset of this community.
I expected a serious response not some unfounded claim of racism..... You can do better than that or maybe you can't. That's pretty damn weak for a hangout boy....
What you're doing is a classic error in judgment and decision making. It's psychology 101. You're taking an incomplete set of facts, and trying to bridge them together since in your mind they form a coherent story. The problem with this is that it's a simplistic view, because the facts that you don't have -- ie what happened between the confrontation and the shot -- is not public knowledge. That fact is also the most important one in the case. So you're glossing over the most important fact in the case. It's a common error in thinking, and you should be made aware of it.
First off. Zimmerman suffered injuries to his head and nose. That is undisputed. The severity of injuries is somewhat open to question, but no one here has seen his medical records, so STFU speculating about their severity. Second, there is no magical threshold of injury that one must suffer before one gets to defend oneself. Third, the witness with the best view of the incident confirms Zimmerman's account. Other witness saw or heard even less or have changed their story.
I had an opposite view on the Joe Horn case. I didn't not defend him because he was white and the burglars weren't. Nor do I think that others went to his defense for that reason. I gathered information and formed my opinion. I thought the guy was a blood thirsty idiot. Now you come along and makes such an obvious racist statement like the one above and you think you are the f'n enlightened one here is what is sadly hilarious. If you're defense is it takes one (you) to spot one, you might gain some traction. I doubt it...but it beats..I don't have **** left but to call them a racist and watch my internet buddies giggle...
Lol at your definition of brutal. So brutal he suffered minor injuries. I've seen a lot worse, and yet never see anybody get shot.
We've seen him. We know he did not seek further medical attention after leaving the police station. We know they weren't severe. There is magical threshold for what a reasonable person believes the severity of their injury will be if they choose to shoot someone. The witness only confirms that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. That doesn't confirm or dismiss most of what Zimmerman says.
LOL! I love it. gwayneco and company wanted us to allow time for more evidence to surface and after weeks there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the Martin case but for this case that just happened on Saturday we're supposed to take it at face value with witness testimony. Again, hypocrite much?
1. No! You do not have to beaten to a pulp in order to claim self-defense. That ain't the law. 2. John's testimony does not entirely corroborate Zimmerman's testimony, but it is entirely consistent with it and it happens to be the most thorough account of any eyewitness.
Not at all. I'm still waiting for your exculpatory evidence. And the other case is not the same because there is no self-defense claim to sort out.
I'm not the one in charge of gathering evidence. I simply stated that there may be additional details we need to review before making the case cut and dry. If the other case is not the same, why was it brought up? Because there was a claim that somebody said Trayvon's name?
Good lord people. Stop feeding the trolls. What element of this case could possibly be brought up at this point that hasn't been discussed in the tiniest minutiae in the first 100 pages? Seriously? Stop it. If you keep arguing the bigtexxx and his merry men, they will continue to restate the same mind numbing arguments right up to the announcement the verdict. Then should GZ be found guilty, the merry men will continue to claim he was found guilty in the liberal media before he even stood trial and he never stood a chance. This coming from the the same right wing folks who tell us they love everything about America more than the left. ...oh, except this activist judges. They don't love them.
You mean to tell me a 17 year old Martin couldn't have easily outran the out of shape Zim? Do you know Zim did to deserve to be punched? No, cause we weren't there. Attacking someone for following you is called assault.
the fact that you are arguing for self-defense shows that you are speculating the severity to be extreme yourself
