The Zimmerman-Martin Case (middle east, illegal, attorney, racism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is unbelievable to me that people do not want to accept basic facts. I don't care what color you are, you cannot choose to pursue someone, and when you get your ass handed to you, decide to kill them. NO self-defense law, even "stand your ground" was written with that intent. Zimmerman lost his right at that defense the minute he choose to exit his vehicle. Anything that occurred after that is a consequence of his own action.
Further, I am no CSI or medical professional, but I fail to see how one shoots another individual at close range and has NO evidence of blood on his attire. That doesn't even pass the basic common sense test. I also see no signs of a serious, "kill or be killed" struggle from that video. For anyone to dispute that reality is just laughable.
Finally, all of this talk about why the back community is up in arms is ridiculous. First, black people are not the only ones crying foul in this situation. Second, it should NOT have taken this much of a public uproar for JUSTICE to be done, and a thorough investigation to be conducted. I am no psychic, and I was not there that night, but too many inconsistencies and a shoddy investigation clearly demonstrates something extremely amiss and sinister in this situation. I firmly believe Zimmerman chased down Trayvon Martin and shot him without true provocation. If solid evidence disputes this, I will eat my words, but somehow I don't think that day will come.
And always remember that one can make a series of seemngly logical arguments to arrive at the wrong conclusion, it still does not change the fact that the conclusion drawn was incorrect.
Exactly... now we have liberals calling the police officers liars because they said Zimmerman was bleeding... do you know who was there and who wasn't? The police officers were there and all these idiot liberals weren't... and now the liberals "know" the answer... so the question is... who is the idiot...
Err...is this your version of the mirror on the wall question?
Good info. Perhaps the police have swabbed Zimmerman's gun. Spatter doesn't seem to be an issue though. At least not in the context of those wondering why Z is not covered in TM's blood.
I'm still wondering why he is not covered in his own blood? There would be blood stains on the front of this shirt from a busted nose. There would be blood on his clothes from a head or scalp injury. The head bleeds profusely due to the amount of blood sent to the brain. If the injuries were as brutal and severe as Zimmerman claimed...there would be blood!
It is unbelievable to me that people do not want to accept basic facts. I don't care what color you are, you cannot choose to pursue someone, and when you get your ass handed to you, decide to kill them. NO self-defense law, even "stand your ground" was written with that intent. Zimmerman lost his right at that defense the minute he choose to exit his vehicle. Anything that occurred after that is a consequence of his own action.
Further, I am no CSI or medical professional, but I fail to see how one shoots another individual at close range and has NO evidence of blood on his attire. That doesn't even pass the basic common sense test. I also see no signs of a serious, "kill or be killed" struggle from that video. For anyone to dispute that reality is just laughable.
Finally, all of this talk about why the back community is up in arms is ridiculous. First, black people are not the only ones crying foul in this situation. Second, it should NOT have taken this much of a public uproar for JUSTICE to be done, and a thorough investigation to be conducted. I am no psychic, and I was not there that night, but too many inconsistencies and a shoddy investigation clearly demonstrates something extremely amiss and sinister in this situation. I firmly believe Zimmerman chased down Trayvon Martin and shot him without true provocation. If solid evidence disputes this, I will eat my words, but somehow I don't think that day will come.
And always remember that one can make a series of seemngly logical arguments to arrive at the wrong conclusion, it still does not change the fact that the conclusion drawn was incorrect.
And that goes for both Travyon Martin and George Zimmerman. If wrong conclusions can be drawn on Zimmerman, then they can be drawn on Martin as well.
Says who are you a blood spatter expert? Actually if shot at close range the less likely you are to get the victim's blood on you. I know it seems counterintuitive but there is science behind it.
Neither That quote nor the entire article support what you're claiming. It's referring to powder burns at close range, and blood staining the gun's muzzle, neither of which exclude blood splatter. Nothing in what you provided states that there is less external blood in close-range shootings than from shots fired from further away.
I'm still wondering why he is not covered in his own blood? There would be blood stains on the front of this shirt from a busted nose. There would be blood on his clothes from a head or scalp injury. The head bleeds profusely due to the amount of blood sent to the brain. If the injuries were as brutal and severe as Zimmerman claimed...there would be blood!
That's why i'm curious as to what chronological point in the process this video was taken? Too many unanswered questions to be jumping to the conclusions that some on this thread are jumping to in my view.
Neither That quote nor the entire article support what you're claiming. It's referring to powder burns at close range, and blood staining the gun's muzzle, neither of which exclude blood splatter. Nothing in what you provided states that there is less external blood in close-range shootings than from shots fired from further away.
Ever shot a gun? Serious question, not being snarky. If so, you've probably shot something close range before, right? Ever notice how the bullet penetrates with less "explosion" (for lack of a better word) than those things that you shoot farther away? The velocity is such that it punches right through instead of chewing it's way through.
Best I can do to paint a mental picture....but I believe there's plenty of info out there to suggest that blood spatter is far less for close contact shots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
