|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 26 2013 08:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Thanks for your help. Will try to catch it tomorrow. Did you know John Grisham, should, in fact, NOT be the ultimate authority on how trials work? Was surprised myself.
|
On June 26 2013 08:00 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 07:56 farvacola wrote:
it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant To me it seems this is just imagination at work. Where is the data you are basing this on? Give specific numbers. Show nested quote +'X' times out of 'Y' a quantity of blood greater than 'Z' is transferred to a blunt object after a single blow. It's silly to base an argument off imagination.
Most of the good source material is behind a paywall, but here is this from a webmd on head injury first aid.
Minor cuts on the head often bleed heavily because the face and scalp have many blood vessels close to the surface of the skin. Although this amount of bleeding may be alarming, many times the injury is not severe and the bleeding will stop with treatment you can do at home. But it is important to know the difference between wounds you can treat at home and head wounds that need emergency treatment.
How to Stop Bleeding From a Minor Head Wound
|
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself.
|
On June 26 2013 08:11 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:08 dAPhREAk wrote: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. Thanks for your help. Will try to catch it tomorrow. Did you know John Grisham, should, in fact, NOT be the ultimate authority on how trials work? Was surprised myself.
thats right. it should be CSI: Miami.
|
On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself.
Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury.
|
On June 26 2013 08:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:00 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 07:56 farvacola wrote:
it's likelihood in leaving behind blood after a strike is rather significant To me it seems this is just imagination at work. Where is the data you are basing this on? Give specific numbers. 'X' times out of 'Y' a quantity of blood greater than 'Z' is transferred to a blunt object after a single blow. It's silly to base an argument off imagination. Most of the good source material is behind a paywall, but here is this from a webmd on head injury first aid. Show nested quote +Minor cuts on the head often bleed heavily because the face and scalp have many blood vessels close to the surface of the skin. Although this amount of bleeding may be alarming, many times the injury is not severe and the bleeding will stop with treatment you can do at home. But it is important to know the difference between wounds you can treat at home and head wounds that need emergency treatment.
How to Stop Bleeding From a Minor Head Wound
This says absolutely nothing about blood transfer.
See, this is exactly my point. You are making the leap from "head wounds bleed a lot" to "head wounds would definitely transfer visible amounts of blood to the surface that caused the wound" using nothing but imagination.
You can't just use imagination as evidence. If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed.
|
On June 26 2013 08:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself. Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury.
If he changes his statement now his entire story falls apart. What we have instead is a case of him getting his ass kicked as opposed to a life threatening brutalization. Again it would still be self defense but why the need to lie if that's the case?
A person came after me with a baseball bat once (case of mistaken identity), I was close to my vehicle and as an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I have bear spray in my truck. I used it on the man and he went down, was hurt pretty badly by it. I was told when purchasing it that if I ever used it on a person it was assault with a deadly weapon. I was 100% truthful with the officer I never lied and said he hit me with the bat before I sprayed him just that I didn't think I could outrun him, and believed he was going to use the bat on me.
The man in question said he intended to scare me, which the judge ruled was inconsistent with his actions as he agreed that I was already retreating away. In the end the judge ruled that we were both guilty of a criminal act although mine was under imminent threat/ danger and there was precedence already of people using bear spray to defend themselves the same way I did. So It was up to me how I wanted to proceed, (Judge, Prosecution and Defenses words) so in private chambers with the other man lawyers present and judge, I asked if we could just view it as a wash and forget about it. This was deemed acceptable by all parties. In this case no one lied well actually the man who attacked me sort of did but the point is there is no need to lie to make your story sound better if you are already innocent.
If Zimmerman's story was that Treyvon was beating him up and he was scared for his life and he probably was at that point. Then that's what his story should be, not that his head was slammed against the concrete repeatedly which doesn't seem to be consistent with his injuries. I recognize that everyone wants their story to be as justifiable as possible and in Zimmerman's shoes he really needs to be justified in shooting Treyvon. However, you can be in immediate danger / believe someone is going to kill you without arguing that the sidewalk was Treyvon's weapon. If your going to make that argument you better make sure forensics (Ie. Blood spatter, injuries sustained, and your interaction with the body) are consistent with your telling of the events. Some people are dismissing Zimmerman's statements about what he did with Treyvon's hands as not important. Well its actually really important, as Zimmerman was eluding to looking for a weapon in Treyvon's hands when he splayed them.
Zimmerman was trying to paint his situation in the direst straights possible by saying his head was being smashed off the sidewalk and that he thought Treyvon had a weapon which is why he moved his hands. What the evidence is showing is that his head was not struck repeatedly off the sidewalk and that he didn't splay his hands when checking for a weapon. I think he knew full well after the shooting how terrible it looked and said those things to attempt to justify his actions. Again this doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense, it just looks really bad.
|
@bugser:
apparently you missed Evidence 101 and Criminal Procedure 101.
|
On June 26 2013 08:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
@bugser:
apparently you missed Evidence 101 and Criminal Procedure 101.
Feel free to elaborate.
Vagueness is the refuge of someone with no leg to stand on.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 08:43 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:22 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself. Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury. If he changes his statement now his entire story falls apart. What we have instead is a case of him getting his ass kicked as opposed to a life threatening brutalization. Again it would still be self defense but why the need to lie if that's the case? A person came after me with a baseball bat once (case of mistaken identity), I was close to my vehicle and as an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I have bear spray in my truck. I used it on the man and he went down, was hurt pretty badly by it. I was told when purchasing it that if I ever used it on a person it was assault with a deadly weapon. I was 100% truthful with the officer I never lied and said he hit me with the bat before I sprayed him just that I didn't think I could outrun him, and believed he was going to use the bat on me. The man in question said he intended to scare me, which the judge ruled was inconsistent with his actions as he agreed that I was already retreating away. In the end the judge ruled that we were both guilty of a criminal act although mine was under imminent threat/ danger and there was precedence already of people using bear spray to defend themselves the same way I did. So It was up to me how I wanted to proceed, (Judge, Prosecution and Defenses words) so in private chambers with the other man lawyers present and judge, I asked if we could just view it as a wash and forget about it. This was deemed acceptable by all parties. In this case no one lied well actually the man who attacked me sort of did but the point is there is no need to lie to make your story sound better if you are already innocent. If Zimmerman's story was that Treyvon was beating him up and he was scared for his life and he probably was at that point. Then that's what his story should be, not that his head was slammed against the concrete repeatedly which doesn't seem to be consistent with his injuries. I recognize that everyone wants their story to be as justifiable as possible and in Zimmerman's shoes he really needs to be justified in shooting Treyvon. However, you can be in immediate danger / believe someone is going to kill you without arguing that the sidewalk was Treyvon's weapon. If your going to make that argument you better make sure forensics (Ie. Blood spatter, injuries sustained, and your interaction with the body) are consistent with your telling of the events. Some people are dismissing Zimmerman's statements about what he did with Treyvon's hands as not important. Well its actually really important, as Zimmerman was eluding to looking for a weapon in Treyvon's hands when he splayed them. Zimmerman was trying to paint his situation in the direst straights possible by saying his head was being smashed off the sidewalk and that he thought Treyvon had a weapon which is why he moved his hands. What the evidence is showing is that his head was not struck repeatedly off the sidewalk and that he didn't splay his hands when checking for a weapon. I think he knew full well after the shooting how terrible it looked and said those things to attempt to justify his actions. Again this doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense, it just looks really bad.
Your choice in how to proceed ? Are you talking about a civil matter ? The way it's presented, it seems like you against the bat guy, not you being prosecuted by the government.
Anyways, what happened with Zimmerman is what happened, whether there is evidence to substantiate what happened is not the world we live in. Ideally, what happened would be in a well-lit area while being recorded on video. But it wasn't. We have imperfect information, witnesses have imperfect recollection, etc. Not remembering everything accurately is very differently from lying.
|
You are still being extremely vague.
Explain in your own words what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it.
Thanks for wasting both our times.
|
On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times.
i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false:
If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed.
|
On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times.
Are you really ignoring the way the law works because it goes against you? Really?
|
On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: Show nested quote +If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed.
Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words.
You can't? That's because I am correct.
|
On June 26 2013 08:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:43 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 26 2013 08:22 Kaitlin wrote:On June 26 2013 08:11 B_Type13X2 wrote:
water doesn't wash all traces of blood away, Zimmerman could have received the cuts to the back of his head while turning his head in an attempt to avoid being struck anymore on his face. That is plausible, what I am starting to doubt thought from the non transference of blood to the sidewalk is that his head was repeatedly struck against the concrete. Again having seen the results of someone doing this to another person first hand, His injuries are not consistent with what he describes happening in the confrontation. If Treyvon wasn't repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, then it becomes harder to justify the action of shooting someone dead. Again I am not going to say that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself at that point, but I don't believe he is being truthful in stating that. I think he is lying to make his actions seem less cowardly.
It's not against the law to be a coward, it is however against the law to perjure yourself. Can't be perjury until he testifies to it under oath. I'm not sure if you're referring to some under oath testimony he's given at some point or statements to officers or public statements. If he lied to officers as part of the investigation, it's still illegal, but false statements or obstructing justice, but not perjury. If he changes his statement now his entire story falls apart. What we have instead is a case of him getting his ass kicked as opposed to a life threatening brutalization. Again it would still be self defense but why the need to lie if that's the case? A person came after me with a baseball bat once (case of mistaken identity), I was close to my vehicle and as an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I have bear spray in my truck. I used it on the man and he went down, was hurt pretty badly by it. I was told when purchasing it that if I ever used it on a person it was assault with a deadly weapon. I was 100% truthful with the officer I never lied and said he hit me with the bat before I sprayed him just that I didn't think I could outrun him, and believed he was going to use the bat on me. The man in question said he intended to scare me, which the judge ruled was inconsistent with his actions as he agreed that I was already retreating away. In the end the judge ruled that we were both guilty of a criminal act although mine was under imminent threat/ danger and there was precedence already of people using bear spray to defend themselves the same way I did. So It was up to me how I wanted to proceed, (Judge, Prosecution and Defenses words) so in private chambers with the other man lawyers present and judge, I asked if we could just view it as a wash and forget about it. This was deemed acceptable by all parties. In this case no one lied well actually the man who attacked me sort of did but the point is there is no need to lie to make your story sound better if you are already innocent. If Zimmerman's story was that Treyvon was beating him up and he was scared for his life and he probably was at that point. Then that's what his story should be, not that his head was slammed against the concrete repeatedly which doesn't seem to be consistent with his injuries. I recognize that everyone wants their story to be as justifiable as possible and in Zimmerman's shoes he really needs to be justified in shooting Treyvon. However, you can be in immediate danger / believe someone is going to kill you without arguing that the sidewalk was Treyvon's weapon. If your going to make that argument you better make sure forensics (Ie. Blood spatter, injuries sustained, and your interaction with the body) are consistent with your telling of the events. Some people are dismissing Zimmerman's statements about what he did with Treyvon's hands as not important. Well its actually really important, as Zimmerman was eluding to looking for a weapon in Treyvon's hands when he splayed them. Zimmerman was trying to paint his situation in the direst straights possible by saying his head was being smashed off the sidewalk and that he thought Treyvon had a weapon which is why he moved his hands. What the evidence is showing is that his head was not struck repeatedly off the sidewalk and that he didn't splay his hands when checking for a weapon. I think he knew full well after the shooting how terrible it looked and said those things to attempt to justify his actions. Again this doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense, it just looks really bad. Your choice in how to proceed ? Are you talking about a civil matter ? The way it's presented, it seems like you against the bat guy, not you being prosecuted by the government. Anyways, what happened with Zimmerman is what happened, whether there is evidence to substantiate what happened is not the world we live in. Ideally, what happened would be in a well-lit area while being recorded on video. But it wasn't. We have imperfect information, witnesses have imperfect recollection, etc. Not remembering everything accurately is very differently from lying.
He's talking about lying. He wasn't saying that his case was the same as this case.
|
dAPhREAk,
How is the "self-defense" argument applied ? Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense, or does Zimmerman have some burden to overcome in asserting that claim ?
|
On June 26 2013 08:55 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 08:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 08:53 bugser wrote:So you don't have a point to make at all, or belatedly realized your point was wrong and didn't want to embarrass yourself by going through with making it. Thanks for wasting both our times. i take it you are too busy to educate yourself. this statement is false: If you are going to assert that lack of blood transfer is evidence that Zimmerman's head never hit the concrete you need evidence that blood transfer is guaranteed. Then go ahead and explain why it is false in clear English using your own words. You can't? That's because I am correct.
Or.. or... you could be so hard up on trying to suck daphreak into a pointless argument when you don't even understand basic legal terminology and take no effort into educating yourself. you can argue your positions but you've really added nothing to the topic at hand while daphreak has maintained, updated and kept this thread thriving for quite a long time. If you feel you're being brushed off by everyone it's not because they think you're right, it's because you're so wrong you aren't worth the time to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
