George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Ravi]

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

The point, as even a dimwit like you (if you were capable of being honest) is that Ravi had made a claim. There are absolutely examples where saying "you don't have to" or "you don't need to do that" does NOT mean (contrary to her contention) that you are being told to stop.

In the Zimmerman case, the dispatcher had no authority to tell a citizen not to keep an eye on a suspect. And Zimmerman had no obligation to take the advice as any kind of a directive.

Ravi was wrong. As are you.

But you sit tight. Somebody will be by in a while with those tissues you need.

What dispatcher? It was more than likely a police officer he spoke to as he called the non-emergency number and probably got the officer on duty.

And yes, your "example" was retarded.

 

[Liability]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

The point, as even a dimwit like you (if you were capable of being honest) is that Ravi had made a claim. There are absolutely examples where saying "you don't have to" or "you don't need to do that" does NOT mean (contrary to her contention) that you are being told to stop.

In the Zimmerman case, the dispatcher had no authority to tell a citizen not to keep an eye on a suspect. And Zimmerman had no obligation to take the advice as any kind of a directive.

Ravi was wrong. As are you.

But you sit tight. Somebody will be by in a while with those tissues you need.

What dispatcher? It was more than likely a police officer he spoke to as he called the non-emergency number and probably got the officer on duty.

And yes, your "example" was retarded.

When one calls 9-1-1 one gets a dispatcher, dopey.

And no. Your comment was retarded. My rejoinder simply highlighted your vapidity.

Muddle on.

 

[Ravi]

The point, as even a dimwit like you (if you were capable of being honest) is that Ravi had made a claim. There are absolutely examples where saying "you don't have to" or "you don't need to do that" does NOT mean (contrary to her contention) that you are being told to stop.

In the Zimmerman case, the dispatcher had no authority to tell a citizen not to keep an eye on a suspect. And Zimmerman had no obligation to take the advice as any kind of a directive.

Ravi was wrong. As are you.

But you sit tight. Somebody will be by in a while with those tissues you need.

What dispatcher? It was more than likely a police officer he spoke to as he called the non-emergency number and probably got the officer on duty.

And yes, your "example" was retarded.

When one calls 9-1-1 one gets a dispatcher, dopey.

And no. Your comment was retarded. My rejoinder simply highlighted your vapidity.

Muddle on.

He didn't call 9-1-1. And you call yourself an attorney.

 

[percysunshine]

Ravi still looks like Barak Obama all dolled up.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman

No, Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was bigger than Trayvon.

and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving

You are an outright liar.

yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing.

No, what I am saying is that Zimmerman's story doesn't add up. If that is Zimmerman we hear on the tapes, then I cannot believe that he was getting his head pounded into the pavement like he claims, on the verge of unconsciousness. Just to present one example of the contradictions in what Zimmerman has been claiming.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Once again: the so-called "Stand Your Ground" aspect of the justification law is not even relevant to this discussion. It may never be.

Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense. It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.

Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree. Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances. Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take. Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know. At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment. Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>

If Martin is on top of Zimmerman, cracking Z's noggin into the concrete, placing Z in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, Z is entitled to defend himself. Period.

Sorry, it's not "Period".

Under Florida Law, the event's leading up to that point are a factor to be considered.

And if the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.

I agree, to a degree. No "smoking gun" evidence has been released. However some of the evidence that has been released can be used by the state to undermine Zimmerman's story. For example, the 7-11 video shows no signs of "suspicious" or "drug induced behavior". The bullet path isn't consistent with Zimmerman shoting "up" into Martin. And lack of GSR could be indicative of a greater distance between the two based on an extended arm discharge of the firearm. Then of course we haven't seen the "clubhouse video" listed on the evidence list. If from security cameras and it shows no suspicious activity by Martin, then the very basis of Zimmerman's initial call and his description of events becomes suspect (and on the other hand if it does show suspicious behavior, it adds credibility to Zimmerman's story).

But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that. If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him. If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what? The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself. The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

Not the way I read it.

The opening paragraph clearly indicates that the provisions of 776.041 allow for loss of self defense immunity (the preceding paragraphs in the law).

Paragraph "(1)" says the immunity is permanently lost if the individual was in the act of a forcible felony. Aggravated Assault under Florida Law is a forcible felony and would result either by : (a) simple assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, OR (b) assault coupled with the use of a weapon. Assault need not be physical violence, assault can be conveyed through word or intent, which is different than battery which requires a physical action.

Paragraph "(2)" notes that if the initial aggressor had an opportunity to retreat once hostilities are started and fails to do so, then they also lose self defense immunity. This is were the state could attempt to use the forensic lack of GSR on Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt to indicate that a straight arm extension was present at the time of firing the weapon which would indicate a greater distance between the two. If Zimmerman had pushed Martin off, then pulled his gun and fired - he would have not have taken advantage of an avenue to disengage.

Paragraph "(1)" and "(2)" are joined by an "or", which means loss of the self defense immunities present in the preceding paragraphs can be lost under either paragraph.


Again though, those are scenario's which don't apply **IF** the defense were to show Martin was the initial aggressor.


>>>>

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

Well, I think that we can all conclude that we never want to go on a date with Liability. Seems to be one of those "no means yes" guys.

Liability: How about I take you back to my place, take off all your clothes, and have my way with you.

Date: Oh, you don't need to do that.

Liability: *does it anyway*

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman

No, Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was bigger than Trayvon.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The autopsy report says (Trayvon) was 5 feet 11 inches and 158 pounds.[35]...
Zimmerman's height is shown as 5'8" and his weight as 185 pounds on his Seminole County Sheriff's Office Inmate Booking Information dated 4/11/2012.

and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving

You are an outright liar.

In looking at the entrance wound, the examiner assessed the gunshot as one fired from "intermediate range", which can mean from 1 to 18 inches, according to a forensics expert.[169] The examiner noted "soot, ring abrasion, and a 2 x 2 inch area of stippling".

Besides the fatal gunshot wound, the examiner also noted a "1/4 by 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger".

The autopsy report stated that Martin had trace levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood and urine.[170][171] The toxicology report found the levels to be 1.5 nanograms/ml of THC and 7.3 nanograms/ml of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.

You are either a liar or just stupid as shit.

yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing.

No, what I am saying is that Zimmerman's story doesn't add up. If that is Zimmerman we hear on the tapes, then I cannot believe that he was getting his head pounded into the pavement like he claims, on the verge of unconsciousness. Just to present one example of the contradictions in what Zimmerman has been claiming.

Who the **** said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?

Why do libtards think they can just make shit up and pretend it to be fact?

More bizzare behavior from the leftwing ideologues for whom Truth is that which advances their cause and nothing else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

Well, I think that we can all conclude that we never want to go on a date with Liability. Seems to be one of those "no means yes" guys.

Liability: How about I take you back to my place, take off all your clothes, and have my way with you.

Date: Oh, you don't need to do that.

Liability: *does it anyway*

Hey, dumbass, liability was demonstrating that 'you dont need to do that' *can* mean something other than a command to stop. He was not asserting that ALL uses of the phrase are not commands.

Dear God you are stupid.

How do you walk on this Earth and be so damned assinine?

 

[Liability]

Boy Scout: Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady: Oh, dear boy. You're so kind. But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout: [Does it anyway.]

Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."

Well, I think that we can all conclude that we never want to go on a date with Liability. Seems to be one of those "no means yes" guys.

Liability: How about I take you back to my place, take off all your clothes, and have my way with you.

Date: Oh, you don't need to do that.

Liability: *does it anyway*

Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.

 

[beagle9]

Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense. It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.



If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree. Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances. Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take. Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know. At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment. Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>

If Martin is on top of Zimmerman, cracking Z's noggin into the concrete, placing Z in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, Z is entitled to defend himself. Period.

Sorry, it's not "Period".

Under Florida Law, the event's leading up to that point are a factor to be considered.

And if the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.

I agree, to a degree. No "smoking gun" evidence has been released. However some of the evidence that has been released can be used by the state to undermine Zimmerman's story. For example, the 7-11 video shows no signs of "suspicious" or "drug induced behavior". The bullet path isn't consistent with Zimmerman shoting "up" into Martin. And lack of GSR could be indicative of a greater distance between the two based on an extended arm discharge of the firearm. Then of course we haven't seen the "clubhouse video" listed on the evidence list. If from security cameras and it shows no suspicious activity by Martin, then the very basis of Zimmerman's initial call and his description of events becomes suspect (and on the other hand if it does show suspicious behavior, it adds credibility to Zimmerman's story).

But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that. If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him. If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what? The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself. The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

Not the way I read it.

The opening paragraph clearly indicates that the provisions of 776.041 allow for loss of self defense immunity (the preceding paragraphs in the law).

Paragraph "(1)" says the immunity is permanently lost if the individual was in the act of a forcible felony. Aggravated Assault under Florida Law is a forcible felony and would result either by : (a) simple assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, OR (b) assault coupled with the use of a weapon. Assault need not be physical violence, assault can be conveyed through word or intent, which is different than battery which requires a physical action.

Paragraph "(2)" notes that if the initial aggressor had an opportunity to retreat once hostilities are started and fails to do so, then they also lose self defense immunity. This is were the state could attempt to use the forensic lack of GSR on Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt to indicate that a straight arm extension was present at the time of firing the weapon which would indicate a greater distance between the two. If Zimmerman had pushed Martin off, then pulled his gun and fired - he would have not have taken advantage of an avenue to disengage.

Paragraph "(1)" and "(2)" are joined by an "or", which means loss of the self defense immunities present in the preceding paragraphs can be lost under either paragraph.


Again though, those are scenario's which don't apply **IF** the defense were to show Martin was the initial aggressor.


>>>>

Good job as I read this piece by you... You apear to have a level head on your shoulders, in which is what is needed when speaking on this issue as it should be...

Now lets here a good rebuttal, because this was good work and/or good reasoning..

 

[idb]

Just so I get this straight...if Martin had had a gun, and simply shot Zimmerman, then he would have been allowed to go free under the Stand Your Ground law and no more would have been said about it.
But, if he doesn't have a gun, and beats up on Zimmerman he is the master of his own fate, deserves to be shot and suffer criticism for his actions.

Is that right?

He'd be where Zimmerman is now, trying to make a case for self-defense out of the existing evidence. And likely having a worse time of it.

So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
Remember that Zimmerman wasn't going to be prosecuted originally - presumably because he used a gun and not his fists.
Does it have to be a gun or are other weapons permissible?

 

[Ariux]

So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
Remember that Zimmerman wasn't going to be prosecuted originally - presumably because he used a gun and not his fists.
Does it have to be a gun or are other weapons permissible?

You sound like someone who has a skull full of shit, making you unable to understand even simple things.

Afro Trayvon did not assault Zimmerman in self-defense, it makes no difference whether he had a gun or not.

Even if, suppose that one of the racist shitheads is right, and that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon. The only one getting hurt in this fight was Zimmerman. It's hard to claim self-defense in a sustained one-sided beating.

 

[WorldWatcher]

... and that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon. The only one getting hurt in this fight was Zimmerman. It's hard to claim self-defense in a sustained one-sided beating.

Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force. It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.


[Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]


>>>>

 

[Ariux]

Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force. It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.


[Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]

Don't be a f-ing idiot. "Use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm." Someone easily winning a fist fight loses a presumption of a fear of death or bodily harm. The only thing Trayvon had to worry about were more gashes on his knuckles. Continuing a fight against helpless Zimmerman could no longer be self-defense, even if Zimmerman started the fight.

And, your Disclaimer is also stupid. The timeline proves that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman. Even the unreliable and hostile witness, Trayvon's ho, gives an account that suggests that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims Trayon started the fight. Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight. Also, Zimmerman the accused gets the presumption of innocence. You are so f-ing stupid. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force. It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.


[Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]

Don't be a f-ing idiot. "Use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm." Someone easily winning a fist fight loses a presumption of a fear of death or bodily harm. The only thing Trayvon had to worry about were more gashes on his knuckles. Continuing a fight against helpless Zimmerman could no longer self-defense, even if Zimmerman started the fight.

1. We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

2. Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.

And, your Disclaimer is also stupid. The timeline proves that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman. Even the unreliable and hostile witness, Trayvon's ho, gives an account that suggests that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims Trayon started the fight. Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight. Also, Zimmerman the accused gets the presumption of innocence. You are so f-ing stupid. I'm embarrassed for you.

No, the timeline proves no such thing. Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.

Looking at each perspective they both had motive. Martin: Some weird guy in a truck was following him at night in the rain. He'd already shown a willingness to run away, but the weird guy in the truck jumped out and started pursuing him. Martins motive? Self Defense, and remember under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law he had no requirement to retreat if he felt threatened. Zimmerman: He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction. He'd previously reported another youth that got away before the police arrived. Due to frustration he was going to ensure that didn't happen again.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.


One thing you did get right though, in court there is a presumption of innocence and if the prosecution fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman should be found not guilty.


>>>>

 

[Ariux]

1. We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

Stop thinking your ignorance means something. Several lines of evidence of evidence is against Zimmerman flashing his gun.

2. Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.

You are so incredibly f-ing stupid. A sustained one-sided fist fight is not any kind of defense against a gun.

No, the timeline proves no such thing. Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.

The timeline shows that Trayvon could have been far away if he hadn't chosen to confront Zimmerman. And, I haven't heard anything about the ho saying she heard Trayvon tell someone to get off of him. So, I'm certain that is just a figment of your shitty imagination.

Zimmerman: He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.

You have a perfect record of perfect stupidity. Zimmerman's frustration is not motive to attack Trayvon. Zimmerman's frustration is only motive to keep an eye on Trayvon, until police arrived.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.

We know enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Afro piece of shit assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot in self-defense. However, I understand why you don't see this, given nothing but a shit-filled skull to work with.

The core of the Prosecution's case will be to use Bullshit to attack Zimmerman's credibility with his own words, and to emphases that Zimmerman could have avoided [being brutally assaulted] by staying in his car. The jury will then quickly acquit Zimmerman.

 

[taichiliberal]

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman? There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose. Carry on.

Shithead, try to keep up with the news, the autopsy report about the shooting is consistent with Zimmerman's story. And, why are you concerned about imaginary pointy hoods and not the real hood warn by Trayvon? Go evolve a brain.

There's nothing imaginary about your personal bigotry and racism, my sheet wearing Ariux....that was self evident in your first post on this thread.

And please provide the source of your claim....as I grow tired of doing your homework proper for you, and having to endure your consistent attempts to pass off your supposition and conjecture as fact also.

 

[taichiliberal]

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD

Pretty good call, considering his school suspension.......and autopsy blood test.


So it's justified to shoot a kid with a suspension for a bag with marijuana traces (no actual drugs)....and because he smoked a joint within 24 hours prior (TRACES in his blood)? And since the store video DID NOT reflect the weird actions that Zimmerman related, his story is all the more dubious. But according to YOU, Toddles, Zimmerman's a psychic!

had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

Yup. And if Trayvon had continued running home after he evaded Zimmermann's paunchy ass, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he returned and began beating on Martin's paunchy ass.


Says who? Zimmerman? Nah, he'd have NO reason to lie, would he? And remember, he pursued Martin AFTER being told the cops were on the way and it wasn't necessary, and Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him when he said he thought he evaded Zimmerman, ONLY to be CONFRONTED BY HIM AGAIN.

Now Trayvon's punk ass is dead. Deal with it.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, VISITING A NEARBY HOUSE OF HIS DAD'S GIRLFRIEND. Martin is a "punk" because some armed wanna be Neighborhood Watch clown with a history of temper related run in's with the cops and numerous FALSE ALARM calls to 911 about suspicious black guys starts tailing him at night first in a car, and then on foot. Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him. And Martin is a "punk" for being a dead man who cannot tell his side of the story, but the evidence does not bode well for Zimmerman as being wholly innocent victim.

Seems like YOU are the "punk", Toddles. And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks. You're done.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD,

No, Trayvon is a punk because instead of running home, he came back and started beating on Zimmermann. Now he's a dead punk.

Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him.

Trayvon had to fight for his life when Zimmermann asked him what he was doing?

And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks.

Run away, maybe you'll survive.

Once again, Toddles just repeats his lies and wishful thinking as if they are fact. Pity our intellectually impotent Todd's version of reality just doesn't cut it:

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements - Yahoo! News


No one runs from liars like you, Todd....we just expose you for the clowns you are then ignore you. Adios.

 

[taichiliberal]

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman? There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose. Carry on.

Shithead, try to keep up with the news, the autopsy report about the shooting is consistent with Zimmerman's story. And, why are you concerned about imaginary pointy hoods and not the real hood warn by Trayvon? Go evolve a brain.

1. First of all "Zimmerman's story" hasn't been released yet. His statements to police and his video reenactment from the next day were not part of the evidence that was released and both the prosecution and the defense are moving to keep them sealed prior to the SYG hearing and (if it goes that far) the trial before the jury.

2. Secondly, if what we "hear" in the media is consistent with the story that has been withheld then there are a couple of glaring holes that will have to be explained.

a. Lack of damage to Martin's hands if the story is that Martin was raining blows on his face (besides one small abrasion on a finger with no knuckle damage). Yet the autopsy shows only a small abrasion on one finger.

b. The bullet path resulting in a straight shot through the chest left of center of the sternum through the heart. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shot, it would be unnatural to bring the gun between them. An entrance to the side would have been more natural. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was in a horizontal place, Martin was in a vertical plane - shooting upward implies that a bullet path from lower to higher in Martin's body would be expected.

c. Now, Martin is supposed to be on top of Zimmerman, the gun fired between them (required for the straight chest shot). However, forensic analysis of Zimmerman's clothes show no GSR (exempt for one particle of lead chemically identified on the BACK of Zimmerman high right sleeve). If the bodies were that close, and with Zimmerman were on the bottom - then blowback and gravity would have worked to have GSR on Zimmerman's cloths. Lack of GSR on Zimmerman's cloths is more indicative of a straight arm shot where the arm is extended away from the body.

d. FInally, and I don't know how this fits into the events, evidence shows that Martin was wearing a shirt under the hoodie - Zimmerman's DNA was found on the shirt **UNDER** the hoodie. How did it get there.​

Forensic Rerpots and Autopsy -->> State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>

And of course, your logical approach to evidence given will be immediately rejected because of it's conclusion...most likely one or more Zimmerman Zombie will say, "you're not a foresnic specialist or ballistics expert". Yet they are more than willing to say Zimmerman is justified by evidence given on nothing more than supposition and conjecture.

And the band played on.