Yet another turn in the Zimmerman/Martin Case!

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe you should view that video one more time. Red and black from the shoulder down the arms, is not a red jacket.

Only if the arms end well above the elbow!!! You play blind as well as dumb!

What color shirt does the "meticulous" police report say he was wearing?

OK. Let me try to settle this between you and Bigreb.

I think both of you would stipulate that at 19:15 on February 26, 2012 it was likely dark, or at least close to dark.

As the ambient light source fades, the human eye can still discern many colors. Except, when the lack of light starts to get to the point where the human eye is less physically capable of discerning colors, RED is the first to go. And, the eye sees it as black.

So, I believe the best we can say is the jacket he had on in the video might be the same as he had at the time of the shooting (or it might not).

But, that is how the human eye works - as light dims, red is the first color that is perceived as no color (eg. black).

What ed is arguing over is that the police report says Zimmerman had a red jacket on, in the video he's wearing a red and black jacket which would be a two toned color wouldn't you agree? It's like Zimmerman put on a new jacket.

 

[The Gadfly]

Doesn't that depend on where the person is shot?

That, and some other factors; for instance, a direct hit to the heart, or the upper aorta, will often produce arterial blood spray, though usually from the exit wound because that's usually a larger opening; a wound that collapses a lung, on the other hand, sometimes will produce little immediate external bleeding, as the surrounding skin and muscle is sucked partially into the entry wound, with the victim thus bleeding out into his chest cavity, which also compresses one or both lungs to the point the victim cannot breath or be artificially ventilated (medically, this is a tension hemothorax, part of the treatment for which is to insert a tube into the patient's chest to allow the blood trapped therein to escape, so the lungs have space to take in air). In simple terms there can be a lot of internal bleeding inside the chest cavity without a lot of external bleeding, especially from something like a 9mm which tends to punch small entry AND exit holes, unless an expanding bullet is used (and even then the expanding bullet still has to both expand fully, AND exit, which doesn't always happen. To complicate matters further, movement of the victim following the hit (falling, etc. ) can and often does pull intact clothing over the wound, where it then acts almost like a bandage. Believe it or not, you often get more arterial spray from a wound to the head, neck, abdomen, or even an extremity, than you get from many chest wounds, simply because those are more likely to hit an artery closer to the surface,and the blood doesn't have a large, compressible space (like the pulmonary cavity), to pour into.

Hope that helps; sorry if it's a bit graphic.

All fine and dandy. But not many wounds from a 9mm will kill a person instantly with one shot.

Who said this one did?I don't know if Martin died instantly; neither do you. Exactly how much time elapsed after the shot before the first EMT or Paramedic checked Martin at the scene? ANY lethal gunshot wound may result in death (cardiac arrest) from hypovolemic shock in two minutes or less. That's quick but certainly not instant. As to how quickly a hit from a 9mm will incapacitate someone, that's highly variable; a lightly wounded man may well pass out immediately, simply from the realization he's been shot, while someone with a lethal wound from the same projectile may remain on his feet, conscious, fighting and functioning, for several minutes, as the FBI found out the hard way, in "the great Miami shootout" some years back. I do not know what conclusion you are trying to draw (or imply) but there isn't any which can be reliably drawn here without the autopsy findings. Absent that, all we know, is that it appears Martin's wound incapacitated him fairly quickly, if not immediately; but there's no probative evidence of anyone's guilt or innocence to be derived from that portion of the facts. If you're looking at the first sentence in what I posted (as you quoted here), do you understand the difference between the words "often" and "invariably"? Good; now which word did I use? The one I intended to, because that's accurate, based on my EXPERIENCE, not my suppositions, or something I read or heard somewhere. You have any actual experience that gives you any credibility in disputing what I said, put it out here, so everyone can see it. Otherwise, don't try to play word games with me to prove some supposed point; I'm not in the mood. Someone asked for an explanation; I provided same, and clearly stated what I based it on, without making any judgement on anyone's guilt or innocence in this case.