Enhanced Police Video Shows Injuries On George Zimmerman's Head - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35419216]I know what man slaughter is, but if Martin did in fact attack him for just following him it would not be man slaughter. Zimmerman following Martin is not instigation of a fight. If Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin and Martin attacked, that would be instigation.[/QUOTE]You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? He followed Martin even when specifically told not to do so by the authorities, he then not only followed Martin, but actually accosted him which is entirely out of line, he most definitely instigated the situation. If he had actually done just as he was told and stayed the fuck away, there never would have been any possibility of a fight or of Martin getting killed. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] And just as a last word, if Zimmerman had pulled his gun first, Martin would have been entirely justified for attacking him because he just drew a fucking gun on him. And if Zimmerman did draw his gun first, then it is almost certainly Second Degree Murder.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;35411044]I mean at around 0:41 at the same time as they show the picture of him. I know it would break the skin, I just wouldn't think it would [i]slash[/i] the skin.[/QUOTE] It's called a laceration homie. Lacerations are caused by blunt forces and can appear regular or irregular.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35419285]You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? He followed Martin even when specifically told not to do so by the authorities, he then not only followed Martin, but actually accosted him which is entirely out of line, he most definitely instigated the situation. If he had actually done just as he was told and stayed the fuck away, there never would have been any possibility of a fight or of Martin getting killed.[/QUOTE] Apparently you don't. By Zimmerman's account he did not accost Martin but Martin accosted him after he saw Zimmerman following him. If you do not believe Zimmerman's account that is fine. Lets say Zimmerman did in fact approach Martin. If Zimmerman did not provoke a fight, he did not initiate it. Confronting someone in a non violent manner is not the instigating a fight. It would not be manslaughter. Just because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation does not me he initiated the fight. When in court they are not going to look at who confronted who but who hit who first or who threatened who first. Your not going to get a manslaughter charge on someone who only initiated a non violent confrontation. This is of course assuming it was in fact a non violent confrontation. Proof of which neither I nor you have.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35419449]Apparently you don't. By Zimmerman's account he did not accost Martin but Martin accosted him after he saw Zimmerman following him. If you do not believe Zimmerman's account that is fine. Lets say Zimmerman did in fact approach Martin. If Zimmerman did not provoke a fight, he did not initiate it. Confronting someone in a non violent manner is not the instigating a fight. It would not be manslaughter. Just because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation does not me he initiated the fight. When in court they are not going to look at who confronted who but who hit who first or who threatened who first. Your not going to get a manslaughter charge on someone who only initiated a non violent confrontation. This is of course assuming it was in fact a non violent confrontation. Proof of which neither I nor you have.[/QUOTE] Whoever accosted who doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that there is audio of Zimmerman shooting someone who was screaming for help.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35419449]Apparently you don't. By Zimmerman's account he did not accost Martin but Martin accosted him after he saw Zimmerman following him. If you do not believe Zimmerman's account that is fine. Lets saw Zimmerman did in fact approach Martin. If Zimmerman did not provoke a fight, he did not initiate it. Confronting someone in a non violent manner is not the instigating a fight. It would not be manslaughter.[/QUOTE]Yes it would be and that is the end of the fucking story. I don't understand how you can't get this, there isn't a more succinct way of saying it. [QUOTE]Just because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation does not me he initiated the fight. When in court they are not going to look at who confronted who but who hit who first or who threatened who first.[/QUOTE]Yes, actually, it does. His involvement to begin with created the entire situation. The situation would not have occurred had he not gotten involved. I can put it any way you like, it want change anything. And yes, they do look at circumstances in a situation in court, they in fact have to with cases like this. Otherwise it would just boil down to "Individual A shot and killed Individual B. Therefore, Individual A is guilty of homicide."

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35419505]Whoever accosted who doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that there is audio of Zimmerman shooting someone who was screaming for help.[/QUOTE] Its still unsure of who was screaming. Yes, I have saw the audio experts analysis of it but it is still uncertain. I hope there is comparative audio available for Martin which would hopefully clear it up. If in fact it was Martin then my argument probably wouldn't apply because it would suggest Zimmerman initiated the fight. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35419556]Yes it would be and that is the end of the fucking story. I don't understand how you can't get this, there isn't a more succinct way of saying it. Yes, actually, it does. His involvement to begin with created the entire situation. The situation would not have occurred had he not gotten involved. I can put it any way you like, it want change anything. And yes, they do look at circumstances in a situation in court, they in fact have to with cases like this. Otherwise it would just boil down to "Individual A shot and killed Individual B. Therefore, Individual A is guilty of homicide."[/QUOTE] I cant understand how you cant see that if Zimmerman confronted Martin in a non violent manner and Martin attacked him it would not be Zimmerman initiating the fight. Yes, circumstances do play a part in court I apologize for suggesting it doesn't. I was being specific to this case, if Zimmerman was non violent in his confrontation with Martin and Martin attacked, it would not be Zimmerman starting the fight. If Zimmerman was threatening then yea you are correct that he could be charged with something. My argument that if he was not aggressive or threatening toward Martin in confronting him and Martin attacked him, it would not be him starting the fight.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35419505]Whoever accosted who doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that there is audio of Zimmerman shooting someone who was screaming for help.[/QUOTE] Hardly conclusive at all. A single expert's opinion is going on the assumption that Zimmerman's voice match wasn't entirely accurate (48 percent accurate or something according to the thread, several days ago). I question the reliability of said tests in light of the fact that Zimmerman claims, as written in the police report, while conversing with paramedics, that he was calling for help and nobody came (which is hardly conclusive in its own right but it's obvious now that there's more complications to the story, yet again!) But I guess it'd be easier to just say that the police are screwing up the investigation because they're not immediately arresting him and so the guys who assume this was a prejudice killing aren't getting what they want.

Say I confront someone who I think is doing something in a non combative or threatening way, they get pissed off and attack me, I fight back and hurt them. I am not going to be legally responsible for starting the fight. That is all I am trying to say. ninjaed poo

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35419666]Hardly conclusive at all. A single expert's opinion is going on the assumption that Zimmerman's voice match wasn't entirely accurate (48 percent accurate or something according to the thread, several days ago). I question the reliability of said tests in light of the fact that Zimmerman claims, as written in the police report, while conversing with paramedics, that he was calling for help and nobody came (which is hardly conclusive in its own right but it's obvious now that there's more complications to the story, yet again!) But I guess it'd be easier to just say that the police are screwing up the investigation because they're not immediately arresting him and so the guys who assume this was a prejudice killing aren't getting what they want.[/QUOTE]That's not how audio forensics works. It's not 48% accurate. It means that only 48% of the audio actually matched with Zimmerman's voice. You need something like an over 90% match for it to be reliably considered his voice, meaning he is well under being a match.

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35411403]Still the kid was walking, zimmerman started to follow even though the operator told him not to engage[/QUOTE] Zimmerman was prejudiced, but it doesn't really seem likely that he'd go up to the kid and just shoot him. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] Nothing's for sure though. There just simply is not enough evidence.

Oh hey I see it [img]http://i.imgur.com/EZw6I.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35419285]You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? He followed Martin even when specifically told not to do so by the authorities, he then not only followed Martin, but actually accosted him which is entirely out of line, he most definitely instigated the situation. If he had actually done just as he was told and stayed the fuck away, there never would have been any possibility of a fight or of Martin getting killed.[/quote] The authorities suggested him not to follow him, maybe it's true that he should have followed their advice and there would have been a better outcome here (all in hindsight now of course), but from what I understand he was under no legal obligation to follow that advice. I also don't think there's any solid evidence right now that he accosted Martin. I believe right now Zimmerman is claiming that he got out of his car to check what street he was on when he was accosted by Martin and was punched. [quote]And just as a last word, if Zimmerman had pulled his gun first, Martin would have been entirely justified for attacking him because he just drew a fucking gun on him. And if Zimmerman did draw his gun first, then it is almost certainly Second Degree Murder.[/QUOTE] Sure, but there's no actual evidence at this point that Zimmerman decided to randomly pull out a gun on Trayvon just because he saw him walking down the street.

[QUOTE=download;35410937]It's called being skeptical, much more intelligent than believing everyone is an honest and kind person[/QUOTE] Dude yes you are sooooo smart, presuming that some guy murdered a kid for NO reason [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;35419880]That's not how audio forensics works. It's not 48% accurate. It means that only 48% of the audio actually matched with Zimmerman's voice. You need something like an over 90% match for it to be reliably considered his voice, meaning he is well under being a match.[/QUOTE] I'd be amazed if voices sounded them same all the time, especially if they're yelling for life-relevant help. Also considering it was a low quality telephone call who's focus wasn't even the yelling...yeah, no.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35421369]Zimmerman was prejudiced[/QUOTE] [citation needed]