Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

So, you are faster than a bullet now? Good to know. Look who needs the evaluation now.

No, I cannot run 1000 fps.

However, it's dark and rainy so visibility is poor. That makes the shot difficult. Plus I'd be a moving target which is hard to hit. So the difficulty of the shot is already going to be high. Much higher than if I ran TOWARD the shooter!

Plus, you're making the outrageous claim that Zimmerman was going to kill Martin no matter what. That Martin running away into the dark was going to be enough for Zimmerman to shoot him. The odds of Zimmerman feeling threatened enough to kill Martin would go up if Martin attacked.

Face it, you're REALLY stretching on that one.

[yocan]

Originally Posted by Another

Who ever wins the debate to establish this context will win the day. The prosecutor will argue "stand your ground" for 2 reasons. GZ was free and clear of the threat and walked back into it knowing he was armed(intimidation). She has recently won the "warning shot" case with this as part of the argument.

she will claim the intimidation argument but it won't hold up, he was armed and concealed before the event arose it was simply in his dress. the warning shot was different as I have stated before she armed herself and went back to a fight.

he was armed and ended up being in a fight, not comparable in the least.

[Another]

Originally Posted by yocan

she will claim the intimidation argument but it won't hold up, he was armed and concealed before the event arose it was simply in his dress. the warning shot was different as I have stated before she armed herself and went back to a fight.

he was armed and ended up being in a fight, not comparable in the least.

You're missing the point. He was safe, made his call, and then walked back in, and in your language "to fight" (prosecutor's point). In both cases, they were safe (armed or not) and choose to walk back into the threat. That she had to arm herself, and that he was already armed makes no difference. Both have the right to be armed at any time.

Also, both have the right to the ground they stand on at anytime, armed or not. What is unsettling is the use of the stand your ground law to argue her motive to return meant she did not perceive herself in immediate danger and in need of a self defense motive. Her warning shot only confirmed it while endangering those around her. The argument is she should have kept on going once safe and not come back for property/car keys. Self defense laws do not apply to property.

Same arguement for her for GZ. He walked back in to protect property. There was no immediate threat to his life until he recreated it.

My point, being armed wil tempt some to take greater risks than if they were not. Future juries will be asked, did he use his knowledge of being armed to confront a life threating event? Will stand your ground be used to justify a return to the old west and a gunfighter strategy of tempting others to initiate confrontation to claim self defense?

The woman may have had every intent of returning to take advantage of her husband's anger to "shoot him in self defense," but lost her nerve. That was never the intent of stand your ground. So being free and clear, and walking back in, armed or not, makes you the agressor, or at leasts gives the opportunity for a prosecutor and jury to question it.

[Bonehead]

Originally Posted by gsh341

No, I cannot run 100 fps.

However, it's dark and rainy so visibility is poor. That makes the shot difficult. Plus I'd be a moving target which is hard to hit. So the difficulty of the shot is already going to be high. Much higher than if I ran TOWARD the shooter!

Plus, you're making the outrageous claim that Zimmerman was going to kill Martin no matter what. That Martin running away into the dark was going to be enough for Zimmerman to shoot him. The odds of Zimmerman feeling threatened enough to kill Martin would go up if Martin attacked.

Face it, you're REALLY stretching on that one.

I know what you mean. if fleeing didn't deescalate the situation it would make him a difficult target. that's also working under the (warped) assumption Zimmerman just wanted to kill someone that night.

[prophetic_joe]

Originally Posted by Another

You're missing the point. He was safe, made his call, and then walked back in, and in your language "to fight" (prosecutor's point). In both cases, they were safe (armed or not) and choose to walk back into the threat. That she had to arm herself, and that he was already armed makes no difference. Both have the right to be armed at any time.

Also, both have the right to the ground they stand on at anytime, armed or not. What is unsettling is the use of the stand your ground law to argue her motive to return meant she did not perceive herself in immediate danger and in need of a self defense motive. Her warning shot only confirmed it while endangering those around her. The argument is she should have kept on going once safe and not come back for property/car keys. Self defense laws do not apply to property.

Same arguement for her for GZ. He walked back in to protect property. There was no immediate threat to his life until he recreated it.
There is no evidence that he walked back in anywhere instead there is a tape where he seems to indicate he is walking away.

My point, being armed wil tempt some to take greater risks than if they were not. Future juries will be asked, did he use his knowledge of being armed to confront a life threating event? Will stand your ground be used to justify a return to the old west and a gunfighter strategy of tempting others to initiate confrontation to claim self defense?

The woman may have had every intent of returning to take advantage of her husband's anger to "shoot him in self defense," but lost her nerve. That was never the intent of stand your ground. So being free and clear, and walking back in, armed or not, makes you the agressor, or at leasts gives the opportunity for a prosecutor and jury to question it.

They have to prove that he was in fact looking for a fight, that he enterred a "fight". 911 tapes show, or at least sound like they show, that this is not the case. He states to the officer that Martin ran, instinct for anyone then dictates chase, stupid but still instinct, so Z chased. The officer told him to stand down and Z says OK. Now unless it can be proven that he didn't in fact stand down and was lying during the 911 call it can be reasonably believed that he then exited the fight. M's. injuries are the gunshot woulds and injured knuckles, say what you want and believe what you want injured knuckles are not received by defending they are made by striking, meanwhile there is no evidence whatsoever that Z had injuries to his knuckles, this again supports Z's statement that M struck first. Z also has medical reports stating exactly what he said his injuries were the entire time, fractured nose and cuts to the back of his head. There is plenty of evidence so far out in the media that supports Z's. claim. I am not saying that I 100% believe him because there are other scenarios that could have happened but there has been enough evidence put out to support his statement that it is therefore made a plausible scenario it being a plausible scenario is enough to cause reasonable doubt. There has been no evidence that I have seen or heard of that makes a case for 2nd degree murder. Guilty until proven innocent is not the way this country works I am shocked that so many people believe that just because he Z was armed he is wrong in some way.

Imagine a different scenario. I am on the street and see two men in an argument, just verbal at this point, now I think maybe it could escalate, being good at talking people down I decide to try my hand at de-escalating the situation (I am trained in that after-all) one of the men then gets mad a attacks me viciously. Now am I not allowed to use my firearm to protect myself? Am I guilty of 2nd degree murder because I had a firearm on me when I decided to intervene? If I had no firearm and instead grabbed a rock off the ground is the case different even though the man I hit with the rock still dies from the hit?

My point is this people here and in the media seem to being saying that Z is guilty simply because he got out of his car while armed, considering we have no witnesses to how the rest happened, what if he had gotten out of the car without a firearm and the kid ended up dead from some other injury? Rock Z used in defense from the ground, Z strike back M stumbles into street and is hit by a car, anything really. Is Z still completely wrong? So is the theory here that we should not ever try to stand up when we believe a crime might be happening or is it that we just can't stand up if we happen to be armed?

[Noobie1kNoobie]

It is about time the media releases some real evidence showing old thugvon in his true light. Time to break that stick in half and shove equal parts up jessie jackson and sharpton's rear ends.

[AwPhuch]

Originally Posted by gsh341

No, I cannot run 1000 fps.

However, it's dark and rainy so visibility is poor. That makes the shot difficult. Plus I'd be a moving target which is hard to hit. So the difficulty of the shot is already going to be high. Much higher than if I ran TOWARD the shooter!

Plus, you're making the outrageous claim that Zimmerman was going to kill Martin no matter what. That Martin running away into the dark was going to be enough for Zimmerman to shoot him. The odds of Zimmerman feeling threatened enough to kill Martin would go up if Martin attacked.

Face it, you're REALLY stretching on that one.

Plus forensic evidence would have showed the bullet to have hit him IN THE BACK vs IN THE CHEST, and his knuckles wouldn't have been injured from the beating about the head and shoulders of another...

[Maxter]

and don't forget the part about THC (marijuana) in T's system...

[DeadPool]

If I was zimmerman i wouldnt have gotten out of the car.
If i was lil thug trayvon, I wouldnt have attacked some one for following me.
Thats my take on it. Dumbasses.

[Bonehead]

I am watching Shep and he has pics of the crime scene and new info.


its on now.