and holding you by the shoulders or punching you and bashing your head into the pavement, repeatedly, you'd be pretty lucky to not get a fractured skull, let alone scars.

We all grow up watching movies and shows where the hero gets the crap kicked out of him for ninety minutes straight, and only ends up with a little blood leak over his right eyebrow or lip, or - if he's really unlucky - a shiner! There's always the media image of the hardass that can take a ten-minute fight scene with lead pipes and only show some grunts and winces for all that, comes to dominate. A movie that comes to mind for this is "Kick-Ass" (as an aside, I like this movie, i know others have problems with it, meh). In one scene, the titular character suffers a seven-minute beating with brass knuckles, batons, and baseball bats while tied to a chair. His damage? Bloody mouth and some scrapes and bruises on his face.

I know people know that it's just a movie, they understand on an intellectual level that these sort of beatings are something people don't walk away from two scenes later. But there's usually no point of counter-reference because the majority of people manage to never have to deal with that kind of violence.

And so George Zimmerman saying he had his head whacked into a sidewalk thirty times or whatever ends up sounding at least somewhat credible because people have no points of reference that aren't Bruce Willis looking macho. People haven't seen a scalp sagging off of a skull. They haven't seen someone literally knocked out, they haven't seen convulsions from a bad concussion or a broken skull. They haven't seen or experienced the torque damage that can happen in a fistfight.

If you are in such close contact at such a level it would be impossible NOT to leave DNA evidence of some kind. It is a possibility that Zimmerman injured himself deliberately or the police were somehow involved.

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

back, bumping his head, and dropping his tacticool flashlite

several times without killing him or at least fracturing his skull.

Not to mention the idea that while his head was being slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly he managed to get at his gun and shoot Trayvon in the chest.

I didn't follow the trial on TV, but did the prosecutors bring in any ballistics experts to determine at what distance Trayvon was shot?

and he testified that gun was in contact with the sweatshirt, but not the body and that the sweatshirt was hanging was between 2-4 away from Martin.

Dr Di Maio is a worldwide expert on forensics and gunshot wounds and has written the books that other medical examiners use as a reference. If you do a search on him yourself, I believe you will come to the same conclusion.

...even if he was standing straight up. A point the prosecution should have argued and could have easily demonstrated.

cement 20 or 30 times". I rather doubt anyone who is having their head struck against the pavement in the dark with someone on top of them is able to remain detached enough to provide an accurate count.

As a reminder, one does NOT have to suffer a serious injury, merely be in reasonable fear of it.

It was a fucking lie. Two tiny cuts. High on the head , not at the back where they would have been if done in manner proposed.

since they failed to prove it wasn't true or even come up with viable explanation for the injuries that excluded Martin from causing them.

he and his lawyer that his head was slammed in the concrete at least 20 times!!

I know you want to defend this scum, but at least be honest about the facts!!

and it is entirely possible I remembered that part of the trial wrong. If you can provide cites I will change my post.

As for defending Zimmerman, he made a number of choices that were neither illegal or reckless in of themselves, that does not mean those decisions were particularly smart. All I cared was that the trial was fair and based on evidence and the law, not wild speculation by the media and various websites.

Quite simply the state failed to prove the case, they never explained who threw the first punch and they never explained how Zimmerman got the injuries to his face or head in a manner that would exclude Martin.

And if the prosecution had been able to prove that Zimmerman had his gun out (not that they tried), I would have voted for at least manslaughter if I had been on the jury

to locate the testimonies of various defense witnesses.

Start with Detective Serino and go from there.

And if you see me post it (30 times) - it's said with derision and dismissal of Zimmerman as a lying, murdering bigot. He lies. So since we know all you have to do in front of a jury to be believed is tell lies - then there ya go.

He has zero credibillity niyad. Zero.

n*gger, then you get to kill the n*gger. All you need is to feel (a reasonable, wink wink) fear of the n*gger, and, let's be honest, who isn't just a teensy bit scared of a n*gger after sundown?

All you people need to stop arguing on EMOTIONS! That's the law. Let's stick to the "Kill a N*gger Law" if we want to argue the point!

to keep from crying.

He'd be dead.

Nothing. It never happened.

TYY

and repeated ad nauseam until it stuck in the public psyche...

If Zimmermann claims he shot Martin while Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk where is the sidewalk in this photo? This was a winnable case but the prosecution let too much evidence go unchallenged.

or he made up an outrageous story.