Black Teen Shot 4

Off Topic
401

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

So why are you even debating this?

402

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored? [/quote]

You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever intiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.

So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).

Decidely one-sided.

[/quote]
EXACTLY right. Much the way you said you like to have sex with your own mom.

“You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever initiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.”

No, I never said he was justified. I said following him doesn�?�¢??t make it unjustified.

I also never mentioned anything about who did the first physical part. Instigation could be getting up is someone’s face telling them you are going to cave their skull in and then picking up a bat and starting to swing it. But again, that is a crime in itself. That would matter, but you don’t have the legal right to do that. You do have the right to both be armed and follow someone.

“So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).”

Never said any such thing. I said following isn’t provoking the fight. Terrible logic on your part. SYG as far as I know doesn’t deal with the legality of actions leading up to a fight, it only deals with the duty to retreat (and not use force) while in one. It really just sounds like you are arguing with a voice in your head that also doesn’t know what it’s talking about either. And I never said T assaulted Z or that it was self defense anyway.[/quote]

So you’ve defaulted to ‘your momma’ jokes and prevaricating, now? Brah-voh…

You said that everything leading up to an illegal act is irrelevant. It all depends on who made made the first illegal move, you said. Zimmerman says he shot Martin after Martin attacked HIM. So whether you realize it or not you are invoking the SYG law by ignoring what came before. Just like Zimmerman’s defense is planning to do.

The only ‘voices in heads’ here are you trying to analogize/ strawman your way out by throwing in fictional circumstances. That failed so now we’re on Ad Hominems.[/quote]

I’ll address you again when you decide to address any of my points.

You must be trying to type and have sex with your mom at the same time…

403

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�?�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

So why are you even debating this?[/quote]

Because you are wrong. thethirdruffian just happens to be wrong about what he wrote too. Pointing that out is no more pointless than any other internet argument.

404

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.
[/quote]

It was a flippant remark, really. Grazed knuckles were played up as the primary injury on the corpse. No gunshot wound.

405

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored? [/quote]

You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever intiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.

So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).

Decidely one-sided.

[/quote]
EXACTLY right. Much the way you said you like to have sex with your own mom.

“You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever initiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.”

No, I never said he was justified. I said following him doesn�??�?�¢??t make it unjustified.

I also never mentioned anything about who did the first physical part. Instigation could be getting up is someone’s face telling them you are going to cave their skull in and then picking up a bat and starting to swing it. But again, that is a crime in itself. That would matter, but you don’t have the legal right to do that. You do have the right to both be armed and follow someone.

“So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).”

Never said any such thing. I said following isn’t provoking the fight. Terrible logic on your part. SYG as far as I know doesn’t deal with the legality of actions leading up to a fight, it only deals with the duty to retreat (and not use force) while in one. It really just sounds like you are arguing with a voice in your head that also doesn’t know what it’s talking about either. And I never said T assaulted Z or that it was self defense anyway.[/quote]

So you’ve defaulted to ‘your momma’ jokes and prevaricating, now? Brah-voh…

You said that everything leading up to an illegal act is irrelevant. It all depends on who made made the first illegal move, you said. Zimmerman says he shot Martin after Martin attacked HIM. So whether you realize it or not you are invoking the SYG law by ignoring what came before. Just like Zimmerman’s defense is planning to do.

The only ‘voices in heads’ here are you trying to analogize/ strawman your way out by throwing in fictional circumstances. That failed so now we’re on Ad Hominems.[/quote]

I’ll address you again when you decide to address any of my points.

You must be trying to type and have sex with your mom at the same time…[/quote]

I’ve addressed your points. The cheap shots are all you.

406

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Speculation. Zero evidence of gun flash or anthing else.

The only evidence of the fight’s instigation is: (1) what the Hispanic guy said (the black guy jumped him) and (2) this medical evidence.

While not conclusive, on the scales of justice, this weighs heavily in favor of the Hispanic.

407

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�??�?�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

So why are you even debating this?[/quote]

Because you are wrong. thethirdruffian just happens to be wrong about what he wrote too. Pointing that out is no more pointless than any other internet argument.[/quote]

I’m NOT wrong though. You said Zimmerman’s guilt hinges on who broke the law first. Then you said above that the first illegal move could be as simple as flashing a gun.

Do want to take a third shot at emotional button pushing by offending my mother’s pride? Go for it.

408

[quote]roybot wrote:
Zimmerman was there in that place and time of his own volition. He didn’t lie on his back waiting for Martin to show up to beat him up. [/quote]

At that point, simple self-defense comes into play.

Under Florida law, you have the right to use deadly force to prevent “grevious bodily harm” to yourself.

The whole “stand your ground” stuff is just a red herring introduced by the media which has pissed all over itself in this case.

409

[quote]roybot wrote:
I’m NOT wrong though. You said Zimmerman’s guilt hinges on who broke the law first. Then you said above that the first illegal move could be as simple as flashing a gun.
[/quote]

The other poster is correct. Zimmerman has an air-tight self-defense claim, provided the prosecution in unable to prove that Zimmerman did not illegally provoke the physical fight.

Illegal provocation can be lots of things: gun flash, sometimes fighting words, but generally a punch. Illegal provocation IS NOT following someone or the like.

410

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Zimmerman was there in that place and time of his own volition. He didn’t lie on his back waiting for Martin to show up to beat him up. [/quote]

At that point, simple self-defense comes into play.

Under Florida law, you have the right to use deadly force to prevent “grevious bodily harm” to yourself.

The whole “stand your ground” stuff is just a red herring introduced by the media which has pissed all over itself in this case.[/quote]

I only brought up SYG when Double Deuce said that whatever Zimmerman did up until then was irrelevent… in between calling me a mother fucker that is.

411

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
I’m NOT wrong though. You said Zimmerman’s guilt hinges on who broke the law first. Then you said above that the first illegal move could be as simple as flashing a gun.
[/quote]

The other poster is correct. Zimmerman has an air-tight self-defense claim, provided the prosecution in unable to prove that Zimmerman did not illegally provoke the physical fight.

Illegal provocation can be lots of things: gun flash, sometimes fighting words, but generally a punch. Illegal provocation IS NOT following someone or the like.[/quote]

I’m not debating that. My point was that a seemingly minor instigation like flashing a gun would mark the legal line being crossed, but Zim is the only witness to when and how it was drawn.

Fuck it. I’m not in the courtroom and neither is anybody else here.

412

I find it fascinating, no, hilarious, that some people posting here actually think Zimmerman will not be crucified when this is all done.

really? with the political environment we have right now, this current presidential administration, and a mainstream media complex that is firmly hanging on to a swinging from the nuts of the political left, how do you guys really think this is going to end?

I was equally amused by the people who thought OJ was going to be found guilty and convicted in his first trial. haha

413

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
I find it fascinating, no, hilarious, that some people posting here actually think Zimmerman will not be crucified when this is all done.

really? with the political environment we have right now, this current presidential administration, and a mainstream media complex that is firmly hanging on to a swinging from the nuts of the political left, how do you guys really think this is going to end?

I was equally amused by the people who thought OJ was going to be found guilty and convicted in his first trial. haha [/quote]

Oj didn’t do it. Why would he be found guilty? Obviously Nicole Browm had a nasty slip and fall onto a knife she was using to make a cake for her friend.

414

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
I find it fascinating, no, hilarious, that some people posting here actually think Zimmerman will not be crucified when this is all done.

really? with the political environment we have right now, this current presidential administration, and a mainstream media complex that is firmly hanging on to a swinging from the nuts of the political left, how do you guys really think this is going to end?

I was equally amused by the people who thought OJ was going to be found guilty and convicted in his first trial. haha [/quote]

Oj didn’t do it. Why would he be found guilty? Obviously Nicole Browm had a nasty slip and fall onto a knife she was using to make a cake for her friend.[/quote]

OJ had the luck to have the prosecution team be a bunch of Fame seekers who underestimated the defense. Its comical how everyone got mad at the Defense for doing the Job they got paid to do. But no one was upset with the Prosecutors for letting stuff slip left and right.

415

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�?�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Speculation. Zero evidence of gun flash or anthing else.

The only evidence of the fight’s instigation is: (1) what the Hispanic guy said (the black guy jumped him) and (2) this medical evidence.

While not conclusive, on the scales of justice, this weighs heavily in favor of the Hispanic.[/quote]

I agree I was refuting that not having attacker style bruises proved he didn’t instigate the fight. It is consistent with his story, but that’s it.

416

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmerman�??�??�?�¢??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.[/quote]

So why are you even debating this?[/quote]

Because you are wrong. thethirdruffian just happens to be wrong about what he wrote too. Pointing that out is no more pointless than any other internet argument.[/quote]

I’m NOT wrong though. You said Zimmerman’s guilt hinges on who broke the law first. Then you said above that the first illegal move could be as simple as flashing a gun.

[/quote]

All complete speculation. As is my point. No one has any idea about what actually happened and whether it was a justified shooting.

[quote]

Do want to take a third shot at emotional button pushing by offending my mother’s pride? Go for it.[/quote]

Ironically, my initial comment about your mother illustrated a specific point. It actually contained substance to the argument. It was your response that did not. The one where you simply continued to ignore all points.

The mother comment was initially highlighting the fact that you most certainly did not claim to sleep with your mom, but me claiming you did, was similar to you telling me what I had said. either quote me or explain points. don’t tell me what I said in your own outlandish strawmen.

417

Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from ‘intermediate range,’ autopsy shows

Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from ?intermediate range,? according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury ? a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size ? on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
Separately, a medical report on Martin?s alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin?s shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.
Both documents are part of a mountain of evidence ? up to 300 pages and 67 CDs of witness statements, surveillance videos and other material-- expected to be made public soon in connection with the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman.
Zimmerman allegedly shot Martin during a confrontation inside the gated community in Sanford where Zimmerman was a neighborhood volunteer and where Martin was visiting his father?s fiancée.
After first reporting a suspicious person in the neighborhood in a phone call to Sanford police, Zimmerman followed the teenager before a fatal confrontation that remains shrouded in mystery.

418

How is ‘intermediate range’ defined in ballistics?

419

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
How is ‘intermediate range’ defined in ballistics?

[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think they base this on the gun powder residue, the amounts on the body shot.

420

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
How is ‘intermediate range’ defined in ballistics?

[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think they base this on the gun powder residue, the amounts on the body shot.[/quote]

I think he means what would be considered medium range (distance).

EDIT: “A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from “intermediate range,” which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away”