|
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 July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer.
Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit.
Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot.
Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context.
In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand.
|
On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst.
I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention.
Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt fine. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead.
On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand.
Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin.
|
On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt fine for days. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead.
Which is why I said "The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries." earlier in that discussion. Being the fight was less than a minute--my assumption is that the worsening of a current injury over time was irrelevant. But yes; wounds can get worse without medical attention over time.
|
On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst.
To clarify, the last part wasn't what I was saying. I admit I worded it a bit poorly.
|
On July 02 2013 03:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
admittedly, this is the first time i have watched the whole video. so much makes sense with zimmerman's story after watching it.
now that the video is finished. it seems incredibly consistent with the asian dude and John Good's testimony.
|
So the video is the first time Zimmerman mentions that Martin was knocking his head on the concrete right? He didn't mention it during the police interrogation I believe.
Other than that his story seem pretty consistent, but after reading the emergency call transcript, I have trouble believing that he got out of his car to find out the street name and just happened to follow Martin though.
|
On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin.
The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police.
If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense.
I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet.
|
On July 02 2013 04:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt fine for days. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. Which is why I said "The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries." earlier in that discussion. Being the fight was less than a minute--my assumption is that the worsening of a current injury over time was irrelevant. But yes; wounds can get worse without medical attention over time.
I'm saying that even WITH medical attention head injuries are tricky things. Doctors often can't detect swelling of the brain immediately, and they can't predict the formation of dangerous clots.
In any case, I think this is just semantics. Surely the physicians testimony was based on the assumption that the strikes would've continued had Zimmerman not shot Martin.
On July 02 2013 04:10 Diavlo wrote:
So the video is the first time Zimmerman mentions that Martin was knocking his head on the concrete right? He didn't mention it during the police interrogation I believe.
Other than that his story seem pretty consistent, but after reading the emergency call transcript, I have trouble believing that he got out of his car to find out the street name and just happened to follow Martin though.
Unless I'm mistaken the defense's story is that he got out of his car to check an address after losing track of him, and was then confronted by Martin.
|
I'm sure that the jury must be thinking that Zimmerman surely thinks that he did nothing wrong to have agreed to give so many damned interviews and statements.
Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman is an idiot for doing so.
|
On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet.
why are you "hoping" for anything?
|
On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything?
Apparently vindicating a racial narrative trumps other concerns, like throwing an otherwise productive member of society into jail.
|
On July 02 2013 04:08 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. To clarify, the last part wasn't what I was saying. I admit I worded it a bit poorly.
I know it wasn't what you were implying; but its a very simple and common mistake to make to confuse "injuries" with "effects causing injuries"
Hence why people say something like "I cut my knee" or "I got a nose bleed" and not "my knee landed on an abrasive surface at a rapidly accelerating speed" or "Vessels within my nasal cavity mysteriously ruptured"
But it's important in the case because of conflicting testimonies of "who's on top" "how many times Zimmerman was punched," etc...
I'd normally ignore the difference but it matters here.
|
I'd like to know more about the tall, attractive blond woman who appears to be a part of the prosecution? 
|
On July 02 2013 04:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Apparently vindicating a racial narrative trumps other concerns, like throwing an otherwise productive member of society into jail.
It could be disapproval of the Florida self defense law that removes the requirement for someone to remove themselves from a dangerous situation before using deadly force.
|
On July 02 2013 04:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Apparently vindicating a racial narrative trumps other concerns, like throwing an otherwise productive member of society into jail. It could be disapproval of the Florida self defense law that removes the requirement for someone to remove themselves from a dangerous situation before using deadly force.
if trayvon was on top of him bashing his head against the ground, how exactly was he supposed to remove himself from the situation?
SYG doesnt really apply in this case. either zimmerman is lying and self defense doesnt apply at all, or zimmerman is telling the truth and SYG doesnt apply at all.
there is an article in the OP describing why people talking about SYG are offbase.
|
On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything?
Because I still find his overall actions malicious. How he got where he did, him chasing after Martin, and even on who jumped who first etc...
However, if there was a third guy there telling Martin to stop--and Martin refused to stop, then I can see a legal ground for self defense.
No, I do not think he was some guy who was harmlessly walking about. I do believe that he chased after Trayvon, and that his frustration and need to go vigilante was leading him to murder. But if the "situation" was neutralized enough by Trayvon for a third party to arrive there asking him to stop; then blows following after that are acts of aggression that legally allows self defense.
Until evidence proves Good wrong, that's the only conclusion that can be made.
|
On July 02 2013 04:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Apparently vindicating a racial narrative trumps other concerns, like throwing an otherwise productive member of society into jail. It could be disapproval of the Florida self defense law that removes the requirement for someone to remove themselves from a dangerous situation before using deadly force.
Too bad that Zimmerman's defense is not based on Stand Your Ground.
|
On July 02 2013 04:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Just because you are injured doesn't mean you are going to die. Or to put it another way, most fights in a club or bar do not rise to a level where deadly force would be acceptable. But, once again, you need eye witness of that fight to prove it. Since Zimmerman is claiming he felt Martian was trying to kill him and other witnesses such limited information, it is tough to refute his word.
What are you talking about? Fights commonly lead to permanent injuries and death. This is the sort of BS that people who've never been in a fight/healthcare need to stop swilling around the internet. Whenever lethal force comes up, there's always this argument around "well, he only hit him like 3x, and they weren't good punches either. He shouldn't have used that gun/knife/taser". Once it's at the battery stage, you need to defend yourself.
|
On July 02 2013 04:21 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Just because you are injured doesn't mean you are going to die. Or to put it another way, most fights in a club or bar do not rise to a level where deadly force would be acceptable. But, once again, you need eye witness of that fight to prove it. Since Zimmerman is claiming he felt Martian was trying to kill him and other witnesses such limited information, it is tough to refute his word. What are you talking about? Fights commonly lead to permanent injuries and death. This is the sort of BS that people who've never been in a fight/healthcare need to stop swilling around the internet. Whenever lethal force comes up, there's always this argument around "well, he only hit him like 3x, and they weren't good punches either. He shouldn't have used that gun/knife/taser". Once it's at the battery stage, you need to defend yourself.
All right, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge the others ability to handle them self in a fight, so why don't you just drop that assumption right there. And this discussion isn't really about healthcare, so I don't know why you are bringing that up.
My only point is that most physical conflicts are not done with the intent to kill the other party. It is possible the Martian was not trying to kill Zimmerman and there was no point where a "reasonable person" would have believe they were going to be killed. However, because we don't have any witness to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martian was trying to kill him, it is hard for the DA to make that case.
|
Never thought that TL would have a LR thread for a televised court trial
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
