On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote: No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon.
Since i'm not sure.
Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said.
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:
On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote: No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon.
Since i'm not sure.
Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said.
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote: [quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
The scenario I've imagined has been that Travyon was spooked by a gun, mainly because I don't understand why Martin would punch Zimmerman after trying to talk to zimmerman.
But, for the most part, a quick hit and then zimmerman shoots him. Seems more likely Travyon was defending himself from a threat of a gun more than anything else.
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote: [quote]
Since i'm not sure.
[quote]
I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood on the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
The scenario I've imagined has been that Travyon was spooked by a gun, mainly because I don't understand why Martin would punch Zimmerman after trying to talk to zimmerman.
But, for the most part, a quick hit and then zimmerman shoots him. Seems more likely Travyon was defending himself from a threat of a gun more than anything else.
So, if evidence points toward Trayvon being completely unaware of the existence of the gun until after he's been shot, will you be open to Zimmerman's self-defense argument or would you simply find another imagined scenario that still points to his guilt ? How about if an explanation is provided such that you can understand a reasonable scenario wherein Martin punches Zimmerman even after talking to him ?
On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
[quote]
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
No blood on sidewalk but blood on head means blood on head was post fight right?
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
No blood on sidewalk but blood on head means blood on head was post fight right?
no. wtf.
On June 26 2013 07:54 bugser wrote: Do you have some sort of scientific evidence that a head striking concrete is sure to leave blood?
I know when I scraped my knee as a kid there was never blood left on the pavement. Bleeding happens after the wound, not instantaneously.
he says his head was being slammed against the sidewalk, trayvon saw the gun, reached for the gun and then zimmerman shot him. this doesnt mesh well with the testimony that no blood was found.
On June 26 2013 07:54 bugser wrote: Do you have some sort of scientific evidence that a head striking concrete is sure to leave blood?
I know when I scraped my knee as a kid there was never blood left on the pavement. Bleeding happens after the wound, not instantaneously.
Well, to speak on your example, the knee has relatively few blood vessels and much luss potential to bleed given superficial injury. The skin of the scalp and back of head is full of blood and can produce a large effusion given relatively minor damage, and it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant, particularly when, after the fact, a fair amount of blood was left behind on Zimmerman's head.
On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood on the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
I haven't been watching the live feed of the case, but if that's the case then his injuries make absolutely no sense to me at all given his statements. To be frank I have seen people get cuts to their head without being slammed to the ground or having their head smashed onto the concrete. But those cuts were always closer to their hairline and caused by knuckles or elbows glancing off. I have no idea how that would happen. I have my opinion on this case and that is that Zimmerman is guilty by way of being a moron who put himself into a situation that need never have materialized. But going off the legal system he may have done nothing wrong. So I am attempting to believe or see him as innocent. However no blood on sidewalk is not consistent with lacerations to the scalp. The head spurts blood like a fountain and its everywhere when it happens. Every strike to the face will cause it to splatter to the ground. I'm gonna post a video of an mma fight since people said it was an mma style beat down with a cut that happened on the scalp front of the head and how fast it gushed and how it went everywhere.
Now everyone is a little different but a universal is that when your head is cut you gush. How the hell is there no blood on the sidewalk?
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
Wasn't it raining that night? I doubt the first responders or the officers in charge of the brief initial investigation would have used a black light to confirm that his head did indeed hit the pavement repeatedly. Although blood transference doesn't always happen I think with repeated strikes there is a greater chance of it.
On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
The scenario I've imagined has been that Travyon was spooked by a gun, mainly because I don't understand why Martin would punch Zimmerman after trying to talk to zimmerman.
But, for the most part, a quick hit and then zimmerman shoots him. Seems more likely Travyon was defending himself from a threat of a gun more than anything else.
Why do you continue coming up with unbiased theories in this thread? In a perfect world people do not attack people without just cause but unfortunately that isn't how things work. Maybe with your own arbitrary moral compass you would only attack someone if they brandished a weapon in front of you, but again unfortunately that isn't how things work. Are you unable to accept the fact that sometimes people just attack other people with little to no reason? We could factor in how Trayvon was obviously living the "thug life" and I'd say that would have made him more prone to attacking Zimmerman for something as minor as following him. But this is an unbiased opinion and I don't repeatedly throw it around.
You've already branded Zimmerman as guilty so I don't get why you continue to "participate" in this discussion.
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
Wasn't it raining that night? I doubt the first responders or the officers in charge of the brief initial investigation would have used a black light to confirm that his head did indeed hit the pavement repeatedly. Although blood transference doesn't always happen I think with repeated strikes there is a greater chance of it.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
[quote]
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
The scenario I've imagined has been that Travyon was spooked by a gun, mainly because I don't understand why Martin would punch Zimmerman after trying to talk to zimmerman.
But, for the most part, a quick hit and then zimmerman shoots him. Seems more likely Travyon was defending himself from a threat of a gun more than anything else.
Why do you continue coming up with unbiased theories in this thread? In a perfect world people do not attack people without just cause but unfortunately that isn't how things work. Maybe with your own arbitrary moral compass you would only attack someone if they brandished a weapon in front of you, but again unfortunately that isn't how things work. Are you unable to accept the fact that sometimes people just attack other people with little to no reason? We could factor in how Trayvon was obviously living the "thug life" and I'd say that would have made him more prone to attacking Zimmerman for something as minor as following him. But this is an unbiased opinion and I don't repeatedly throw it around.
You've already branded Zimmerman as guilty so I don't get why you continue to "participate" in this discussion.
it was raining. i would think it would be incredibly sloppy to allow the crime scene to get destroyed by the rain though and not preserve it to the best of their abilities. once he claimed his head hit the sidewalk, i would think they would test the theory. of course, i havent heard the best things about the sanford police departments abilities, and they did let him go at first, so they may have just fucked up the investigation.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
Did they use one of those black lights ? I thought they didn't ? Anyways, we know the back of his head was lumped and lacerated. The defense has provided a "reasonable doubt" scenario for how that occurred. I can understand small amounts of blood being washed away in a drizzle before the evidence collection technician got to work. What is the prosecution's theory of how his head looked the way it did, beyond a reasonable doubt ?
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
Wasn't it raining that night? I doubt the first responders or the officers in charge of the brief initial investigation would have used a black light to confirm that his head did indeed hit the pavement repeatedly. Although blood transference doesn't always happen I think with repeated strikes there is a greater chance of it.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
[quote]
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
The scenario I've imagined has been that Travyon was spooked by a gun, mainly because I don't understand why Martin would punch Zimmerman after trying to talk to zimmerman.
But, for the most part, a quick hit and then zimmerman shoots him. Seems more likely Travyon was defending himself from a threat of a gun more than anything else.
Why do you continue coming up with unbiased theories in this thread? In a perfect world people do not attack people without just cause but unfortunately that isn't how things work. Maybe with your own arbitrary moral compass you would only attack someone if they brandished a weapon in front of you, but again unfortunately that isn't how things work. Are you unable to accept the fact that sometimes people just attack other people with little to no reason? We could factor in how Trayvon was obviously living the "thug life" and I'd say that would have made him more prone to attacking Zimmerman for something as minor as following him. But this is an unbiased opinion and I don't repeatedly throw it around.
You've already branded Zimmerman as guilty so I don't get why you continue to "participate" in this discussion.
A.) It doesn't make sense to me why he would randomly attack people.
B.) It turns out there's no blood on the sidewalk, showing evidence that Zimmerman's story is inaccurate about having his head bashed on the sidewalk.
I think its as likely for Martin to randomly attack Zimmerman as it is for zimmerman to racially profile Martin. However, I have no evidence that Martin randomly attacked Zimmerman, but I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman didn't profile Martin being that he followed him while armed.
I would have to make a leap of faith to believe that Travyon attacked first. I don't need to make as a high a leap to imagine that a guy with a gun following a teen and associating that teen with crime to believe that guy had predispositions on his understanding of who Martin was.
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground.
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted?
edit: you should also realize that what attorneys say are not considered evidence. so, his "facts" are worthless.
The Broken nose is obviously from a punch, Its not unreasonable to assume that the cuts on the back of zimmerman's head were as a result of the fall or being tackled to the ground. I've seen people have their head slammed onto concrete repeatedly during a fight, (I tried to break it up) and the extent of the injuries they suffered from that act were far more catastrophic then the cuts. To be clear, a cut on your scalp will bleed disproportionately then a cut anywhere else on your body. His injuries to the back of his head are more consistent with a fall then having his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that he was confronted, was struck and tackled to the ground, Treyvon ended up ontop. Zimmerman panicked as people do when they end up with someone who is very angry with them ontop of them. He reached for his gun, Treyvon may have struck him one or two more times before being shot.
In that situation yes Zimmerman is defending himself, so self defense stands, but his statement of having his head repeatedly smashed into a sidewalk doesn't fit for me.
testimony came out today that there was no blood foundon the sidewalk. unless we hear otherwise from other witnesses, i am not buying that his head was smashed against the sidewalk (one time, or even repeatedly). that still begs the question why the back of his head is bleeding though.
Fixed. Could have dripped into the grass. Also, as soon as Zimmerman shot him, he moved himself so blood wouldn't be on the sidewalk, but perhaps streaming down his head, which is shown in pictures, and/or randomly dropping into the grass, which isn't noticed or onto his clothes. We know there is blood coming from his head. Not having evidence that there is blood on the sidewalk doesn't convince me that no blood came out of Z's head.
edit: I'd also add that there are multiple lumps around the back of his head. Those couldn't have been made by one strike, since the back of the head is rounded and would require multiple angles being hit. Not to mention, who is to say that each strike draws blood ? People get knocked out all the time without blood being drawn. Not all of the lumps shown in the pictures, have associated lacerations.
if there is no blood "found" on the sidewalk and they used acceptable means to search (e.g., those black light thingies) then i am not buying that his head hit the sidewalk without more evidence, and it casts doubt on his testimony that his head hit the sidewalk. i dont have cause to dispute that his head wasnt hit (as it was clearly bleeding), but i certainly doubt that his head hit the sidewalk (either by a fall, or by trayvon bashing it against the sidewalk) because there was no blood transference. i guess its possible that you can hit the sidewalk without it causing the head to bleed, but i dont really think its plausible. the head was bleeding; if it hit the sidewalk there should have been transference.
Did they use one of those black lights ? I thought they didn't ? Anyways, we know the back of his head was lumped and lacerated. The defense has provided a "reasonable doubt" scenario for how that occurred. I can understand small amounts of blood being washed away in a drizzle before the evidence collection technician got to work. What is the prosecution's theory of how his head looked the way it did, beyond a reasonable doubt ?
i heard nothing about black lights, which is what i expected would have been done. i am really curious why the defense didnt crucify her on the blood on the sidewalk testimony. maybe they have a better witness coming up though.
not sure how the prosecution is going to explain the injuries. i imagine it will be that trayvon was defending himself from zimmerman.
On June 26 2013 08:03 ranshaked wrote: Wasn't it raining the night the incident occurred? If so, wouldn't that wash any blood away?
based on my considerable experience as a serial killer, blood does not disappear so easily.
On June 26 2013 08:03 soon.Cloak wrote: Is there a specific schedule of dates/times for the entire trial? Or do you have to play it by ear?
Sorry, not sure how this system works
its around 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. there may be dark days where no trial is heard, but i dont if it happens in this case. there is no specific schedule for witnesses or the like.
EPT![[image loading]](http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-Head-Injury1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/12/george-zimmerman-bloody-1203.jpg)
