Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations

[Rustynuts]

Originally Posted by gsh341

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!

You are forgetting, they were face to face when it all happened (this per Z's own testimony). At least close enough to converse. M would not have to run anywhere. If M was anywhere outside of the 20-foot rule, Z could have easily defended himself, not be blindsided.

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.

Just WHERE have I claimed Z was looking to kill???? You are so closed minded on the subject, you cannot even think from M's point of view. In his mind he has NO IDEA who/what Z is. Could be a robber, could be a rival gang member, could be a simple killer w/ a gun, etc. That's where the whole fear for your life, SYG comes from on M's side.

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

No I'm not.

[dhgunit]

Originally Posted by Another

GZ was safe in his car when he made his call to the police to report a suspicious person. Job done as neighborhood watch captain.

He then got out of his car, and walked off the public street and back into the common ground behind the homes to where he first saw TM.

I agree that he has the right to do this, and defend himself if confronted. I would not have done that, and waited for the police, or called for another neighborhood watch partner to accompany me. Most jurors will think this way. Most jurors will not be CCW holders.

The prosecutor will make much of his call from a safe and defensable place, his car (castle doctrine), and then he got out and walked into a high risk situation that he had reported.

The stand your ground law was written to give back the right to people to be where they want to be when they want to be. The prosecutor will argue this action as being irresponsible when alone and unarmed, and provacative vigilantism when armed.

Not saying its right, its just the law.

PS: the prosecutor's intent is to challenge the "stand your ground" as dangerous law. I agree for a different reason. I believe in self defense, and I do not have to prove an attempt to avoid use of deadly force. It is over legislation, much like "hate" crimes.

While GZ may have made a stupid decision in your point of view, that doesn't mean he gives up his right to defend himself when jumped by a thug.

At what point is this prosecutor going to argue that GZ may once again defend himself fromTrayvon without facing prosecution? 30 minutes later GZ is now able to defend himself? 2 hours? 2 days?

[Rustynuts]

Link to photos of Z's injuries.

Photos: Evidence from the Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

Yes, he has some blood/cuts on the head. Face hardly looks touched other than bridge of nose. No bruising/black eyes. Back of jacket looks suspiciously clean after a fight on pavement/grass.

[EMN83]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

Link to photos of Z's injuries.

Photos: Evidence from the Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

Yes, he has some blood/cuts on the head. Face hardly looks touched other than bridge of nose. No bruising/black eyes. Back of jacket looks suspiciously clean after a fight on pavement/grass.

Not saying your wrong, but, I've had times where black eyes didn't show up for hours after getting hit, it depended on how many times I got hit and how good of a punch it was. Having done rolling on grass and pavement because that's where I had had to practice, I can say that fighting on pavement/grass doesn't always leave that much of a sign. I'd like to know how long after the altercation the pictures were taken, that could shed some light on things

[Rustynuts]

Originally Posted by dhgunit

While GZ may have made a stupid decision in your point of view, that doesn't mean he gives up his right to defend himself when jumped by a thug.

At what point is this prosecutor going to argue that GZ may once again defend himself fromTrayvon without facing prosecution? 30 minutes later GZ is now able to defend himself? 2 hours? 2 days?

No one is arguing that IF (BIG IF) what Z says is true, then he's not innocent. He can still be an idiot, but legally right. Morally on the whole incident? Not so much.

Does being armed give you the "right" to walk down a drug infested gang neighborhood at 3AM? Sure, same as if you were unarmed. Is it the smart thing to do? NO.

[Rustynuts]

Originally Posted by EMN83

Not saying your wrong, but, I've had times where black eyes didn't show up for hours after getting hit, it depended on how many times I got hit and how good of a punch it was. Having done rolling on grass and pavement because that's where I had had to practice, I can say that fighting on pavement/grass doesn't always leave that much of a sign. I'd like to know how long after the altercation the pictures were taken, that could shed some light on things

I'm assuming within a couple hours, probably during the video'd session we saw at the police station. Remember it was a rainy night. Wet and grass usually leaves a mark. Don't even see so much as a smudge of dirt. Florida dirt may be mostly sand, but it's dirty sand.

Tests, the results of which were made public Thursday, would show evidence of Zimmerman's hands on the firearm, but not Martin's. An analysis of scrapings from underneath the teenager's fingernails did not contain any of Zimmerman's DNA, as might rub off in the case of a prolonged struggle.

Not much to go on there. But seems to exclude the statement Z made about M grabbing for the gun. Unless Z has such super fast reflexes as to keep M's hands away from the gun, but not from bashing his head in.

[EMN83]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

I'm assuming within a couple hours, probably during the video'd session we saw at the police station. Remember it was a rainy night. Wet and grass usually leaves a mark. Don't even see so much as a smudge of dirt. Florida dirt may be mostly sand, but it's dirty sand.

Not much to go on there. But seems to exclude the statement Z made about M grabbing for the gun. Unless Z has such super fast reflexes as to keep M's hands away from the gun, but not from bashing his head in.

forgot how dirty FL was...

My main problem with their analysis, is that if he grabbed for the gun, that doesn't necessarily mean he would have scratched Z, which is how skin cells would have gotten under his nails. I'd think that getting Z's wrist would have been a likely scenario, meaning no DNA to get because of the jacket. Too many variables to use the no DNA as evidence of anything other than M not scratching Z

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

You are forgetting, they were face to face when it all happened (this per Z's own testimony). At least close enough to converse. M would not have to run anywhere. If M was anywhere outside of the 20-foot rule, Z could have easily defended himself, not be blindsided.

Martin was only within 20 feet because he chose to be. He had 2 full minutes from the time Zimmerman exited his truck to the time Zimmerman hung up the phone to make it a lousy 400'. You can make easily walk that distance in under a minute and Martin was running.

Martin was ahead of Zimmerman by more than 20' and took off running. Zimmerman had to park his truck and get out. That gave Martin more than enough time get even farther than 20' away from Zimmerman. The only way Zimmerman could have caught Martin is if he was an Olympic medalist in track. If Martin had just 5 seconds head start on Zimmerman and was only jogging at 7 mph, (I'm in my 40s and overweight and I can easily jog that fast) he would have had a 50 foot head start.

So how do you explain Martin being within 20 feet?

Just WHERE have I claimed Z was looking to kill????

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

The ONLY way to take that is that Zimmerman would have shot a fleeing Martin in the back. The only reason ANYONE would do that is if they INTENDED to kill someone. With a distance shot (50' or more) from behind there is absolutely no chance of claiming self-defense.

But then again, so many people call the cops before gunning down someone from behind that Martin had no choice but to attack and hope he could kill Zimmerman before he was shot in the back while fleeing.

Face it, unless the jury is filled with morons, Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Essentially, this will mean that they found Martin guilty of assault and that Zimmerman was justified in killing him. This is because all the evidence points to Zimmerman being a bit unwise in his actions, but doing nothing illegal. On the other hand, Martin was witnessed assaulting Zimmerman and there is a LOT of physical evidence to support the witness.

[DeadPool]

Originally Posted by gsh341

Martin was only within 20 feet because he chose to be. He had 2 full minutes from the time Zimmerman exited his truck to the time Zimmerman hung up the phone to make it a lousy 400'. You can make easily walk that distance in under a minute and Martin was running.

Martin was ahead of Zimmerman by more than 20' and took off running. Zimmerman had to park his truck and get out. That gave Martin more than enough time get even farther than 20' away from Zimmerman. The only way Zimmerman could have caught Martin is if he was an Olympic medalist in track. If Martin had just 5 seconds head start on Zimmerman and was only jogging at 7 mph, (I'm in my 40s and overweight and I can easily jog that fast) he would have had a 50 foot head start.

So how do you explain Martin being within 20 feet?


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

The ONLY way to take that is that Zimmerman would have shot a fleeing Martin in the back. The only reason ANYONE would do that is if they INTENDED to kill someone. With a distance shot (50' or more) from behind there is absolutely no chance of claiming self-defense.

But then again, so many people call the cops before gunning down someone from behind that Martin had no choice but to attack and hope he could kill Zimmerman before he was shot in the back while fleeing.

Face it, unless the jury is filled with morons, Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Essentially, this will mean that they found Martin guilty of assault and that Zimmerman was justified in killing him. This is because all the evidence points to Zimmerman being a bit unwise in his actions, but doing nothing illegal. On the other hand, Martin was witnessed assaulting Zimmerman and there is a LOT of physical evidence to support the witness.

I'd hate to see an innocent man go to jail but on the other hand I'd hate to see all the riots and racist attacks going on. The two reporters who were attacked by those 30 gang bangers is only about 15 min from my house. The local paper covered it up for 2 weeks, total deliberate discrimination against whites.

[AwPhuch]

Originally Posted by DeadPool

I'd hate to see an innocent man go to jail but on the other hand I'd hate to see all the riots and racist attacks going on. The two reporters who were attacked by those 30 gang bangers is only about 15 min from my house. The local paper covered it up for 2 weeks, total deliberate discrimination against whites.

If they riot it WILL NOT be in the name of JUSTICE