Interesting post I read on Reddit
- If Zimmerman had been punched in the face repeatedly (claiming a broken nose) and had his head bashed into the pavement, then he would have marks on him. The cops that processed him would, by standard procedure, have worn gloves if there was blood present on his body. Here is a security video from the police station when he was processed: no gloves on the cops, and you can clearly see that he has no bruises or cuts on his face or the back of his head: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475
- Also, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon from the ground as he claims, with Trayvon on top of him, then he would have been covered in the kids blood, again requiring the cops to wear gloves. No gloves means no blood, which means he was a safe distance from the kid when he pulled the trigger.
- Lastly, when you punch someone your knuckles take damage from that impact as well: bruising, cuts, etc. The funeral director testified that he saw no injuries whatsoever on Trayvon's hands and knuckles: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03...trayvons-hands
* He was treated on the scene for his injuries
* This isn't the movies, not every gun shot will cause a blood explosion
* Fuck the funeral director, only the coroner's opinion is relevant.
Yes, because EMTs can make blood, a broken nose and bruises disappear
Blood comes out of wounds and is affected by gravity. If you shoot someone who is hovering over you, you're going to get blood on you.* This isn't the movies, not every gun shot will cause a blood explosion
To you.* Fuck the funeral director, only the coroner's opinion is relevant.
Your coming to all these conclusions from low quailty video of zimmerman standing a good ways from the camera. Give me a break
It's obvious in the video he's not injured. And if it's obvious from a low quality video, it must really be obvious IRL
So obvious that the police noticed it and and noted his injuries in the police report, but this low quality video must have more credibility than the police do with you. They must be racist.
The video definitely has more credibility than that police department, IMO. I have absolutely no faith in that department, and no reason to, either.
I don't know if it happened or not. I don't know how severe it was. I'm just saying, based on that low quality video, I, and I repeat, I, do not think Zimmerman was injured, or injured enough to justify killing a teenager.
Well, there was a witness that stated he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman and attacking him:
As to the extent of his injuries, I'm not sure. I heard he received medical attention the next day, so perhaps they'll come out with that information later.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. I didn't pass a test, I demolished one of our country's greatest indicators of logical acumen and reading comprehension. This mean I posses the same logic and comprehension skills as the lawyers who make and interpret these laws. Which means when I look at the way the law is written, I make the same logical conclusions any lawyer or judge would make. I applied the logical opposite because the wording of the law indicates that unless those conditions are met (once again, I already proved it could be strongly argued that they weren't met), then one has a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal force. There was no harm of death (the kid was unarmed) or injury that could lead to death (injury alone isn't enough to trigger Stand Your Ground, if a woman slapped you, could you kill her for causing you injury? No, it's the threat of impending death that triggers it). Clearly they were in a physical altercation, and since death was not imminent and there was no real threat of death to Zimmerman, he had a duty to retreat before he had the right to defend himself with a gun. When it comes down to it, he merely could have brandished the gun and that more than likely would have made Trayvon back off. No one needed to die here. Period.Originally Posted by Graendal
Even if you do ignore the racist motive (which could easily be proven by any good prosecutor), the pattern of following, then getting out of his car to confront Travyon constitutes a pattern of action that can be deemed harassment. It's hard to see how suspiciously following someone in a car (think about it, you have to drive at maybe 5 mph behind someone who's walking to tail them), then to actually get out of the car and confront a person (once again, the previous phone calls at the very least exhibit extreme paranoia, if not racist intent, leading one to logically conclude that it was anything but a friendly conversation Zimmerman was having) that constitutes harassment. You can't argue this. His actions were clearly predatory and aggressive, and by the reports of Travyon's phone call he was clearly emotionally disturbed by the actions. All of that categorizes Zimmerman's actions as harassment. Whether you think it's a pattern or not doesn't matter, because in court it will be considered a pattern.Originally Posted by Graendal
And as for your "look at how shitty of a kid Travyon was" link at the end, I'm just going to leave this here for you.
I AM THE MOST SUPREME AND MIGHTY KING OF WEINERS!!!
Super Powers Include:
Super Strong and can Fly
Sovereign of all weiners, sausages, schnitzel, cheboygans, etc.
Nipples of the Future
It does not ' constitute a pattern of harassment'. You think you know things and you don't. You're wrong, period. And that link you posted is stupid and doesn't change what kind of 'kid' he was.
It's looking less and less like a case of justifiable homicide and self-defense, and more like someone trying to protect the privileged son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court Magistrate Judge.