So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 . . . 43 NEXT
 

So not to get us back on track or anything and I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet but there seems to be a development of sorts. ABC apparently has a photo of Zimmerman's head wound in much better detail than the security footage that was received and it clearly shows blood... although the severity could be argued. Also Zimmerman's bail is apparently set at $150,000.

Story:
http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

Photo:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

Bail article:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/live-blog-attorney-seeks-bond-for-george-zimmerman/?hpt=hp_t1

Orange12345:
I disagree completely, guns are not tools they are weapons. They have one and only one purpose to kill

First of all even if they are only weapons they are still tools.

tool
n.
1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.

2.
a. A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
b. The cutting part of such a machine.

3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession

4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument:

5. Vulgar Slang A penis.

6. A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.

7.
a. A bookbinder's hand stamp.
b. A design impressed on a book cover by such a stamp.

8. Computer Science An application program, often one that creates, manipulates, modifies, or analyzes other programs.

Second of all, not all guns are meant to kill. If they were then we humans would be too fragile to survive. The fact is that guns have a job. Not all of those jobs include killing. The Marine Silent Drill Team carries real firearms that purely meant for show. They have never been used in combat and likely never will be. My competitive guns have never been used for anything but competition. And I never would use them for anything else because they are not set up to do anything else.

ph3195k9:
So not to get us back on track or anything and I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet but there seems to be a development of sorts. ABC apparently has a photo of Zimmerman's head wound in much better detail than the security footage that was received and it clearly shows blood... although the severity could be argued. Also Zimmerman's bail is apparently set at $150,000.

I don't buy it though. He can't be recognized, no second cut is visible even at such close range and if you get such a wound by slamming your head on concrete from a fall, like the murderer claims happened, you'll suffer a skull fracture long before the skin breaks.

You get cuts like that from hitting sharp objects or ground at short distance without much power, like for instance slamming your head against the point of the the door of your car, or hitting a small pebble on your head while trying to create a wound to back an excuse for the murder one just commited.

Besides, doesn't change the fact that any struggle would've been valid self-defense by Martin against Zimmerman's attempt on his life, and Zimmerman can't justify the murder by pointing out that his victim resisted being killed. The only thing that can save Zimmerman is proof that Martin attacked him instead of the other way around, and there's no way that's going to happen. There's already the phone records, the 911 call, Zimmerman's history as a crazed vigilante and his confession he chased Martin and not the other way around that is totally discrediting any attempt to frame events like that.

The second I saw that story about the photo of the wounds, I thought to myself: "How long is it going to be before the people who were denying the wounds even existed start to say that the wounds/photo were faked?"

Not that long, apparently.

Never mind that apparently it was taken with an Iphone and that the GPS data from it confirms it was taken at that location like three minutes after the shooting. IT MUST BE FAKE!

reonhato:

Volf:

reonhato:
this thread shows american stupidity and ignorance so clearly. no where else in the world does someone get shot or a mass shooting occurs and people cry for the solution to be more guns. most modern countries you can know walk down the street no matter what colour your skin and not have to worry about getting your ass shot, most modern countries have reduced mass shootings to almost 0 but not america, the solution of more guns simply has not worked. all the evidence points to more gun control = less mass shooting, less lethal violence and so on, yet americans ignore it and choose to believe the NRA propaganda crap

its almost pointless to argue about guns against the americans who have already decided guns=good. people like farson have shown they do not care about stats or evidence or how well gin control has worked in america because america is awesome and different to the rest of the world

You know what else is pointless? You looking at this thread and assuming the pro-gun opinions here represent the views/opinions of all Americans on this subject. Seriously, one thread=/=the various opinions of over millions of Americans.

your right it is not the opinion of every american and i did point out that it is people like fason. the sad thing is though, it is the opinion of enough americans to have heavily influenced the politics of it all. just like there are enough people in america that will not vote for anyone who is not christian makes it almost impossible for someone who does not say they are of a christian faith to be voted for president. it is almost as impossible to win if you promise gun control. although there will probably be an anti-gun president before a muslim or atheist president

The presidents all being christian isn't really a big deal. Also, I see no reason why people shouldn't have their constitutional right to a gun.

Orange12345:

I disagree completely, guns are not tools they are weapons. They have one and only one purpose to kill

Hunh. Mine must be defective then. We have three possible solutions

1. Most every gun in civilian hands is defective because most aren't used to shoot people
2. I've managed to shoot my gun hundreds of times, killing people without anyone noticing
3. You're incorrect

Let's apply Occam's Razor to this and see what we get, mmmmm?

Simply put, this is a bit prescriptivist, but few things have only purpose.

Blablahb:

ph3195k9:
So not to get us back on track or anything and I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet but there seems to be a development of sorts. ABC apparently has a photo of Zimmerman's head wound in much better detail than the security footage that was received and it clearly shows blood... although the severity could be argued. Also Zimmerman's bail is apparently set at $150,000.

I don't buy it though. He can't be recognized, no second cut is visible even at such close range and if you get such a wound by slamming your head on concrete from a fall, like the murderer claims happened, you'll suffer a skull fracture long before the skin breaks.

Blablahb, the Gregory House of the escapist forums everyone! He'll be here all week for your diagnostician needs.

Blablahb:
I don't buy it though. He can't be recognized, no second cut is visible even at such close range and if you get such a wound by slamming your head on concrete from a fall, like the murderer claims happened, you'll suffer a skull fracture long before the skin breaks.

Uh, speaking from personal experience, having split my own scalp open on concrete on two separate occasions without so much as a concussion... I can't claim to have fallen in the same manner or for the same reason as in Zimmerman's story, but his claim doesn't seem to be that outlandish, a person's scalp tears fairly easily. Also, we're still missing the fairly vital medical report on his physical condition when he was treated by EMTs. Rather than try to guess for myself based on blurry video, I'd rather wait for a report done by trained professionals, and I really wonder why others won't do the same.

Besides, doesn't change the fact that any struggle would've been valid self-defense by Martin against Zimmerman's attempt on his life, and Zimmerman can't justify the murder by pointing out that his victim resisted being killed. The only thing that can save Zimmerman is proof that Martin attacked him instead of the other way around, and there's no way that's going to happen. There's already the phone records, the 911 call, Zimmerman's history as a crazed vigilante and his confession he chased Martin and not the other way around that is totally discrediting any attempt to frame events like that.

-You assume Zimmerman attempted and/or intended to kill Martin at all, much less before they started fighting, without evidence, that would be considered unverified conjecture, you cannot use unsupported theories as critical evidence for a verdict, it doesn't apply in the courtroom, and it doesn't apply here.
-The 911 call supports Zimmerman's claim that he stopped chasing Martin when asked to do so. You can hear him running, then, "mysteriously", you can't. It is entirely possible that Z started chasing M again after hanging up on the 911 operator, but that would also be conjecture, it also should make you wonder how Z caught up with M after such a head start considering their compared physical condition if M had simply kept heading home as one might assume.
-Zimmerman has no history as a crazed vigilante that I am aware of, if you have any information to the contrary, present it, if not, stop spreading bullshit, it just stinks up the place.

ph3195k9:
So not to get us back on track or anything and I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet but there seems to be a development of sorts. ABC apparently has a photo of Zimmerman's head wound in much better detail than the security footage that was received and it clearly shows blood... although the severity could be argued. Also Zimmerman's bail is apparently set at $150,000.

Story:
http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

Photo:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

Bail article:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/live-blog-attorney-seeks-bond-for-george-zimmerman/?hpt=hp_t1

No wonder it didn't show up in the police video. There's not much blood at all. A few dabs with hydrogen peroxide and poof, it vanishes.

But why did it take so long for this to come out? This is not a police photo, it was clearly taken by a civilian. Why has this person never spoken out before?

Farson, if I may pick your brain a bit: how easy or hard do you think it'd be for a possibly untrained, inexperienced individual to make a judgment about range as indicated in the video? Do you think that statement is credible?

I'm a little busy right now, will edit the OP later.

Heronblade:
Rather than try to guess for myself based on blurry video, I'd rather wait for a report done by trained professionals, and I really wonder why others won't do the same.

Exactly, which is why the murderer's claims belong with the trash untill he can provide evidence of him not chasing Martin at all, and proof of the injuries he sustained.

Heronblade:
-You assume Zimmerman attempted and/or intended to kill Martin at all

I don't assume anything. I observe he shot Martin dead, even confessed to the murder while trying to hang up his bullshit excuse of supposedly being the victim, I also observe he carried a firearm for exactly that purpose, and chased Martin prior to murdering him.

Unless you can refute any of those things happened, please don't start about 'assuming'.

Gorfias:

TechNoFear:

Gorfias:
Had he been armed, this might have gone down differently.

But even if Martin was carring a firearm, the outcome would probably been the same; someone would still have ended up shot, with the shooter claiming self defense..

We'll never know. The larger point is still that this tragedy should not be persuasive as showing a need for greater gun control, which has historically been used to make it easier to lynch black people.

That's a complete load of bullshit. Most "gun control" laws have come about well after the era of lynchings. That's a total lie designed to make "gun control" advocates look like racists. When you're quoting that miserable harpy Ann Coulter to make your argument, you already lost.

evilneko:

ph3195k9:
So not to get us back on track or anything and I do not think anyone has mentioned it yet but there seems to be a development of sorts. ABC apparently has a photo of Zimmerman's head wound in much better detail than the security footage that was received and it clearly shows blood... although the severity could be argued. Also Zimmerman's bail is apparently set at $150,000.

Story:
http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

Photo:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

Bail article:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/live-blog-attorney-seeks-bond-for-george-zimmerman/?hpt=hp_t1

No wonder it didn't show up in the police video. There's not much blood at all. A few dabs with hydrogen peroxide and poof, it vanishes.

But why did it take so long for this to come out? This is not a police photo, it was clearly taken by a civilian. Why has this person never spoken out before?

Farson, if I may pick your brain a bit: how easy or hard do you think it'd be for a possibly untrained, inexperienced individual to make a judgment about range as indicated in the video? Do you think that statement is credible?

I'm a little busy right now, will edit the OP later.

Could be the person was intimidated by all the uproar going on.

It also could be that it took this long for someone to figure out how to fake not only the picture, but the GPS information attached to it, but I'm not familiar with how difficult that would be I'm afraid.

I can however tell you about the range. The presence of gunpowder residue at all indicate the weapon was fired within at most about five feet depending on the model and atmospheric conditions, usually less than two to three feet. Marks aren't usually distinct enough to be visible with the naked eye unless the weapon was even closer, generally within 18 inches for a pistol round. The gunpowder forms an identifiable circular pattern that becomes both smaller and easier to see the closer the weapon was to the impact site. If the muzzle was actually in contact with the body, you would expect there to be charring and/or bruises in a tight ring around the entry wound. There's some good information on the subject here. link (the section involving gunpowder marks starts on the tenth page, marked as #70, #72 has a picture of a 9mm impact site that might be similar to what Zimmerman's gun left behind)

EDIT: I do feel compelled to mention a few additional things. It is possible to fake gunpowder marks, but without a blank to fire (and a way to keep others from hearing the second shot), it is extremely difficult and takes significantly more time and care than Zimmerman would have realistically had even if he both knew how and had the tools on hand.
On the other hand, I don't know what this person saw, or whether or not they would have a clue what gunpowder burns look like.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:

TechNoFear:

But even if Martin was carring a firearm, the outcome would probably been the same; someone would still have ended up shot, with the shooter claiming self defense..

We'll never know. The larger point is still that this tragedy should not be persuasive as showing a need for greater gun control, which has historically been used to make it easier to lynch black people.

That's a complete load of bullshit. Most "gun control" laws have come about well after the era of lynchings. That's a total lie designed to make "gun control" advocates look like racists. When you're quoting that miserable harpy Ann Coulter to make your argument, you already lost.

Most FEDERAL gun control laws came after the era of lynchings. Prior to the Sullivan act however, all gun control laws were aimed at blacks. The Sullivan act being aimed at those dirty polacks and wops.

With the trial starting up we will see all the evidence the police have had all along, such as the "bloody head photo". Evidence that shows there is not sufficient proof to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, much less murder.

This is going to be the Duke Lacrosse case all over again. Where the racially and politically biased court of public opinion convicted those boys of rape. It was latter found that they were innocent, and that the case against them was a horrible injustice.

We cant let the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd get away with it like they did when they called the Duke Lacrosse team rapists. Nancy Grace called those kids filthy rapists and she never got canned for it. Now she is free to call Zimmerman a vile murderer. So when this case is over, and innocence is proven. Lets take down all the media personalities and "internet celebrities" who did the same thing to Zimmerman that they already did to the Duke Lacrosse team.

cthulhuspawn82:
With the trial starting up we will see all the evidence the police have had all along, such as the "bloody head photo". Evidence that shows there is not sufficient proof to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, much less murder.

This is going to be the Duke Lacrosse case all over again. Where the racially and politically biased court of public opinion convicted those boys of rape. It was latter found that they were innocent, and that the case against them was a horrible injustice.

We cant let the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd get away with it like they did when they called the Duke Lacrosse team rapists. Nancy Grace called those kids filthy rapists and she never got canned for it. Now she is free to call Zimmerman a vile murderer. So when this case is over, and innocence is proven. Lets take down all the media personalities and "internet celebrities" who did the same thing to Zimmerman that they already did to the Duke Lacrosse team.

Now hold on just a moment. You can't assume what evidence the police are holding onto, or what will happen at the trial, any more than the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd can. It is still within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman could be guilty of first or second degree murder. While I consider that scenario far less likely than either a valid case of self defense or him being guilty of manslaughter, one must acknowledge other possibilities until proven otherwise.

Heronblade:

cthulhuspawn82:
With the trial starting up we will see all the evidence the police have had all along, such as the "bloody head photo". Evidence that shows there is not sufficient proof to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, much less murder.

This is going to be the Duke Lacrosse case all over again. Where the racially and politically biased court of public opinion convicted those boys of rape. It was latter found that they were innocent, and that the case against them was a horrible injustice.

We cant let the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd get away with it like they did when they called the Duke Lacrosse team rapists. Nancy Grace called those kids filthy rapists and she never got canned for it. Now she is free to call Zimmerman a vile murderer. So when this case is over, and innocence is proven. Lets take down all the media personalities and "internet celebrities" who did the same thing to Zimmerman that they already did to the Duke Lacrosse team.

Now hold on just a moment. You can't assume what evidence the police are holding onto, or what will happen at the trial, any more than the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd can. It is still within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman could be guilty of first or second degree murder. While I consider that scenario far less likely than either a valid case of self defense or him being guilty of manslaughter, one must acknowledge other possibilities until proven otherwise.

This. It's a severe leap in logic to insinuate that because the Duke kids were innocent, that means that Zimmerman is too.

Heronblade:

cthulhuspawn82:
With the trial starting up we will see all the evidence the police have had all along, such as the "bloody head photo". Evidence that shows there is not sufficient proof to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, much less murder.

This is going to be the Duke Lacrosse case all over again. Where the racially and politically biased court of public opinion convicted those boys of rape. It was latter found that they were innocent, and that the case against them was a horrible injustice.

We cant let the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd get away with it like they did when they called the Duke Lacrosse team rapists. Nancy Grace called those kids filthy rapists and she never got canned for it. Now she is free to call Zimmerman a vile murderer. So when this case is over, and innocence is proven. Lets take down all the media personalities and "internet celebrities" who did the same thing to Zimmerman that they already did to the Duke Lacrosse team.

Now hold on just a moment. You can't assume what evidence the police are holding onto, or what will happen at the trial, any more than the "Zimmerman is a murderer" crowd can. It is still within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman could be guilty of first or second degree murder. While I consider that scenario far less likely than either a valid case of self defense or him being guilty of manslaughter, one must acknowledge other possibilities until proven otherwise.

Maybe I shouldn't have spoken with such certainty.

What I meant is that if Zimmerman is found innocent, and he probably will be, then we will have another Duke Lacrosse case; a situation where a person who was later found to be innocent was called a rapist/murderer beforehand by numerous media, television, and internet personalities who were never forced to fess up to what they had said.

Take for example the screaming on the 911 call. Zimmerman says it was him, and the one eyewitness claims he saw the man in red (Zimmerman) screaming. If it is proven, or at least shown to be likely that Zimmerman was the one screaming, where does that leave all the TV, media, and internet personalities that claimed with absolute certainty that Trayvon was the one screaming? Shouldn't they get canned and/or lose all credibility for making such a false and damning statement?

Blablahb:

Heronblade:
Rather than try to guess for myself based on blurry video, I'd rather wait for a report done by trained professionals, and I really wonder why others won't do the same.

Exactly, which is why the murderer's claims belong with the trash untill he can provide evidence of him not chasing Martin at all, and proof of the injuries he sustained.

Fair enough, so long as you admit that your own claims belong in the trash along with Zimmerman's until you can prove either hostile intent or that he was uninjured.

Heronblade:
-You assume Zimmerman attempted and/or intended to kill Martin at all

I don't assume anything. I observe he shot Martin dead, even confessed to the murder while trying to hang up his bullshit excuse of supposedly being the victim, I also observe he carried a firearm for exactly that purpose, and chased Martin prior to murdering him.

Unless you can refute any of those things happened, please don't start about 'assuming'.

He confessed to the murder? When? Where? How?

Oh wait, you mean that he confessed to killing Martin in self defense, and you for whatever reason assume that the only possible scenario for that to occur involves murder. The two claims are just a wee bit different, both in legal and ethical matters.

The expressed purpose for guns worn by all holders of a concealed carry license is for defense. Zimmerman carried that weapon without incident for years. If you have evidence that would indicate Z carried the weapon with the intent to use it for any other purpose on this or any previous occasion, present it now, otherwise don't assume you can read his mind.

Even the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin for more than a few paces is in question.

P.S. Generally, the burden of proof for any hypothesis lies with the person making an assumption, not with a person pointing out that proof or at least reasonable evidence is needed before the hypothesis can be accepted. If I were claiming that Zimmerman was innocent, that might be a different matter.

cthulhuspawn82:

Maybe I shouldn't have spoken with such certainty.

What I meant is that if Zimmerman is found innocent, and he probably will be, then we will have another Duke Lacrosse case; a situation where a person who was later found to be innocent was called a rapist/murderer beforehand by numerous media, television, and internet personalities who were never forced to fess up to what they had said.

Take for example the screaming on the 911 call. Zimmerman says it was him, and the one eyewitness claims he saw the man in red (Zimmerman) screaming. If it is proven, or at least shown to be likely that Zimmerman was the one screaming, where does that leave all the TV, media, and internet personalities that claimed with absolute certainty that Trayvon was the one screaming? Shouldn't they get canned and/or lose all credibility for making such a false and damning statement?

Fair enough

Yes, I've never been a fan of rumor mongering, and doing so to such a degree with a legal case is unacceptable. Frankly, the media's conduct through this whole affair pisses me off and those primarily involved should face censure of some kind even if Zimmerman is found guilty.

Then again, I've felt that way multiple times before for other scenarios, but it just never happens. Frankly, there are days when I almost would choose government controlled media over free press if they promised to at least be consistent enough to get accurate verifiable facts out there when not directly lying to protect their own arse. At least then the spin would be relatively predictable, rather than being based on what the networks think will be popular.

Heronblade:
Could be the person was intimidated by all the uproar going on.

It also could be that it took this long for someone to figure out how to fake not only the picture, but the GPS information attached to it, but I'm not familiar with how difficult that would be I'm afraid.

I can however tell you about the range. The presence of gunpowder marks at all indicate the weapon was fired within at most about five feet depending on the model and atmospheric conditions, usually less than two to three feet. The gunpowder forms an identifiable circular pattern that becomes both smaller and easier to see the closer the weapon was to the impact site. If the muzzle was actually in contact with the body, you would expect there to be charring and/or bruises in a tight ring around the entry wound. There's some good information on the subject here. link

EDIT: I do feel compelled to mention a few additional things. It is possible to fake gunpowder marks, but without a blank to fire (and a way to keep others from hearing the second shot), it is extremely difficult and takes significantly more time and care than Zimmerman would have realistically had even if he both knew how and had the tools on hand.
On the other hand, I don't know what this person saw, or whether or not they would have a clue what gunpowder burns look like.

Ah, I see. That is plausible. The funeral director guy didn't mention anything like that I think, but it's possible that either the markings were no longer visible by the time he got the body, or that he just wasn't asked.

Manipulating a picture in photoshop or GIMP mainly requires patience and (to get it right) painstaking attention to detail. Adding the metadata would be fairly simple. However, the police report did say Zim was bleeding, so it's corroborated by that at least. It was mentioned in the GMA video that the prosecution has seen the photo, but actually I presume they have their own version, taken by someone working for them.

If the intent was to fake it to support Zim's story, I think they'd have added more blood just to drive home home the IMMINENT MORTAL DANGER!!! claim.

So I think I accept the photo as "probably genuine."

I also completely understand the prosecution's willingness to go forward, despite the photo. The photo may support a self-defense claim, but doesn't outright prove it. I think they have some evidence that blows a gaping hole in self-defense. Why else would they go for Murder 2 in an obvious bid to get Zim to plead down to Manslaughter or something? A ploy like that doesn't work unless they have some leverage.

evilneko:

I also completely understand the prosecution's willingness to go forward, despite the photo. The photo may support a self-defense claim, but doesn't outright prove it. I think they have some evidence that blows a gaping hole in self-defense. Why else would they go for Murder 2 in an obvious bid to get Zim to plead down to Manslaughter or something? A ploy like that doesn't work unless they have some leverage.

The prosecution is almost certain to have at least some kind of evidence for their case, that's certainly true. But I would point out that the current public outcry is in and of itself fairly strong leverage. Just based on the people commenting in this thread, what do you think the odds are that the jury will be at least primarily composed of people actually willing to listen to the evidence before deciding on a verdict?

Probably at least slightly better than average odds, considering they do try to weed out biased individuals before hand, but when the stakes are that high, I for one would prefer to hold out for a reasonable guarantee. I mean, would you have an easy time choosing between 1-4 years on manslaughter, or an uncertain verdict that could end with you in jail for up to 25 years just as easily as you walking away free?

Well as long as they don't get Blablahb and ravenshrike on the same jury. ;) Of course I know Blab's not American anyway

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to consider the evidence, whatever their preconceived notions might be. I think most of the bias comes from a super-vocal minority. Even in this thread there's evidence of that.

evilneko:
Well as long as they don't get Blablahb and ravenshrike on the same jury. ;) Of course I know Blab's not American anyway

If they had evidence that he started the physical altercation I'd be perfectly willing to convict him of manslaughter. If they had evidence that he had managed to get on top of Martin and Martin had stopped fighting and started begging for his life, I would even convict on Murder 2. However there has been absolutely no evidence shown of either eventuality, and no evidence to such alluded to in the affidavit by Special Prosecutor Corey.

evilneko:
Farson, if I may pick your brain a bit: how easy or hard do you think it'd be for a possibly untrained, inexperienced individual to make a judgment about range as indicated in the video? Do you think that statement is credible?

It would be fairly easy to figure it out. Basically the powder residue is left over when a round exits the barrel without burning the excess powder (the longer the barrel the more powder burned and hence usually more accurate). Normally that excess powder burns off or blows away within the first few feet (it varies according to weather conditions, the specific powder and load, etc) but if the round is stopped within that range then the excess is left behind. If you understand this concept then it should not be hard for a novice to figure out.

For an extreme example of powder residue you can see this video (warning DO NOT DO THIS YOURSELF)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZaK7D4XVo8

evilneko:

Ah, I see. That is plausible. The funeral director guy didn't mention anything like that I think, but it's possible that either the markings were no longer visible by the time he got the body, or that he just wasn't asked.

Sorry, forgot to mention this earlier. The funeral director and the morticians that work for the funeral parlor wouldn't be likely to have seen anything of the sort other than possibly that ring of bruises I mentioned, especially if the weapon was not pressed against him. Martin's hoodie and/or anything he was wearing under it would have caught most of the powder residue and and a fair portion of the heat, and come to think of it, our alleged photographer indicated as such in the article. That hoodie in turn would have been removed by the state medical examiner who did the autopsy, if it had not already been taken off before then, and is probably either among the evidence held by the police, or was photographed and tested then destroyed. Hopefully the former case is true, we don't need any more ambiguity.

evilneko:
I also completely understand the prosecution's willingness to go forward, despite the photo. The photo may support a self-defense claim, but doesn't outright prove it. I think they have some evidence that blows a gaping hole in self-defense. Why else would they go for Murder 2 in an obvious bid to get Zim to plead down to Manslaughter or something? A ploy like that doesn't work unless they have some leverage.

That would only make sense in a bizzaro-world where:

1. They didn't have the threat of Sanford burning under angry mobs of black people.
2. They didn't routinely promote vapid politicking affirmative action-ed careerist female judges to important positions requiring sober judgment.
3. Prosecutors hadn't established a 'best practice' or routinely overcharging defendants, so they could later score points on a plea bargain.

Phoenix Wright wasn't written by Tom Wolfe. GZ is so far completely screwing up the prosecutorial plan by telling the truth as it happened and not breaking down under public pressure and private threats. The prosecution has nothing but spurious Ben Crump sophistry and the race card, and both will be played to the hilt against future black jurors to secure either a conviction or a hung jury. They need nothing else.

evilneko:
I also completely understand the prosecution's willingness to go forward, despite the photo. The photo may support a self-defense claim, but doesn't outright prove it. I think they have some evidence that blows a gaping hole in self-defense. Why else would they go for Murder 2 in an obvious bid to get Zim to plead down to Manslaughter or something? A ploy like that doesn't work unless they have some leverage.

I'll say this. The prosecution better be holding one hell of an ace in the hole or as the case stands now they will be lucky if it doesn't get thrown out by a judge before it ever gets to a jury. However, I don't think that is the case as I don't believe they have any such ace in the hole. I am of the opinion the arrest of Mr Zimmerman was made for largely political reasons due to the public and political pressure the state was under and the prosecution knows full well they can't make Murder 2 with the evidence available.

However, if they had simply elected to not file charges, which I believe would have been the case if not for the attention the case has received, there would have been a massive uproar and very likely riots and other such things. Rather than face the backlash of letting Mr Zimmerman walk though they opted to file the most severe charges they could with the limited evidence they had available knowing that the chances of a conviction were as close to zero as makes no difference.

You see if they wanted to put Mr Zimmerman away they would have lead out with manslaughter charges as they have an open and shut case for manslaughter but almost the exact opposite for murder 2. Because with Murder 2, unlike Manslaughter, the absolute defense provided by the Stand Your Ground Law becomes available.

On top of that there is a far lesser burden of proof placed on the prosecution in a manslaughter case versus a Murder 2 case. With Murder 2 they are going to have to prove that Mr Zimmerman killed Martin as a result of a depraved mind. This is again something they need not prove if they would have brought Manslaughter.

At the end of the day I think I have about as much a chance of serving a jail sentence for killing Trayvon Martin as George Zimmerman does. I think the prosecution knows full well that they have no chance of getting a conviction in this case. And I think the arrest was made so that their asses will be covered when George Zimmerman eventually walks away a free man. They will be able to say they did their best and threw the book at him but it just didn't work out.

CM156:
Joking aside, try reading this a bit.

LOL! You think an online survey of less than 2,000 is definitive!

CM156:

"The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.

Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA."

And let me quote YOUR source;
" Only 6 percent said they thought gun ownership should require no, or very few restrictions."

So firearms but WITH controls.

CM156:

Move on and do something more productive with your time. Heller was the death nail to any significant gun legislation. On the federal level, no group can push for gun legislation. It's basically shouting "Don't re-elect me!"

You keep mis-representing Heller. You keep ignoring;

DoC v Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

EDIT: Note how the terms 'weapon' and 'firearm' are used interchangebly (but the term 'tool' is never used...)

TechNoFear:

And let me quote YOUR source;
" Only 6 percent said they thought gun ownership should require no, or very few restrictions."

So firearms but WITH controls.

Please point out where I've argued that I think firearms should have no restrictions on their ownership or use. I don't. I'm in favor of the NICS.

I've read that part of Heller. I'm not arguing for those things. I've pointed this out before. I'm not arguing for "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". I'm not arguing for "possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill". Preventing those are what I consider "reasonable" restrictions. Please stop accusing me of misreading Heller.

Also, I do have these two sources, which are a bit better. People don't want more laws, as that source shows. The only law that has any favor in the gun control movement is closing the "gun show loophole"

From that source: It appears more people want to keep laws as they are now.

But the most important thing to me about Heller is that it's an individual right. Some people still won't accept that for some odd reason. Even racists have accepted Brown

Volf:

reonhato:

Volf:
You know what else is pointless? You looking at this thread and assuming the pro-gun opinions here represent the views/opinions of all Americans on this subject. Seriously, one thread=/=the various opinions of over millions of Americans.

your right it is not the opinion of every american and i did point out that it is people like fason. the sad thing is though, it is the opinion of enough americans to have heavily influenced the politics of it all. just like there are enough people in america that will not vote for anyone who is not christian makes it almost impossible for someone who does not say they are of a christian faith to be voted for president. it is almost as impossible to win if you promise gun control. although there will probably be an anti-gun president before a muslim or atheist president

The presidents all being christian isn't really a big deal. Also, I see no reason why people shouldn't have their constitutional right to a gun.

tech just explained it. just because you have the right to have a gun does not mean it cannot be controlled. restrict access to handguns and the major issues with guns are dealt with. forced registration, penalties for anyone who does not store guns safely, restrict the number of non collection guns per person, required mental health check and compulsory training and so on. there are a million ways to keep the right to bear arms while making america a much safer place to live. my favourite would be to only allow guns from the time the constitution was written.

there is of course the fact that the constitution is old and horrible outdated and it is possible to change it.

i also love how CM and farson use the exact same arguments whenever i post, they attack me and not the argument, they bring up some random survey of a tiny amount of people or a study conducted by the NRA and say that proves they are right, ignoring the countless studies from around the world that shows the opposite.

reonhato:
my favourite would be to only allow guns from the time the constitution was written

Try giving this a read

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Unconstitutional. Any other ideas that are legally laughable?

As for your other ideas, it makes me laugh at the notion that any of those will be enacted outsides havens of liberal thought.

As for your points: Most won't address people who illegally acquire guns. Here's my solution: Something like Florida's 10-20-Life law. Put real criminals behind bars, and stop locking up non violent drug offenders

CM156:
I do have these

LOL! Two smaller surveys of only 1,000 each, totally definitive...

Even then the majority of Americans favor stricter firearm controls;
"While the American public backs the view that gun ownership is a constitutional right, Americans favor having legal restrictions on it. In the same poll, 49% favor stricter gun laws than exist now and 38% would like to see gun laws remain as they are. Just 11% advocate gun laws that are less strict."

OR are not satisfied with the enforcement of current firearm controls:
"Americans' preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws (60%) rather than pass new gun laws in addition to stricter enforcement of existing laws (35%). "

EDIT: Your argument is 'Americans have a RIGHT to own a firearm.', with which I do not disagree.

I enjoy how you always dodge the question, to revert to the point you can win (which will not help you in court).

However I think the discussion is about wether American's are safer because they have the right to own a firearm.

Scientific studies show repeatedly that less firearms means less mass murders, less homicides and less suicides.

(Just as Americans have the right to smoke tabacco, this does not make tabacco safe...)

TechNoFear:

I enjoy how you always dodge the question, to revert to the point you can win (which will not help you in court).

Uhhhhhh

I'm laughing out loud at this. Sorry, but that's pretty much what I see lawyers do 24/7. I work with them. This is what I've seen them do in court and win when they can successfully change the argument.

The "are we safer" argument to me, is pointless at this point, because laws for guns are getting more lax, not strict. If there becomes a large movement to repeal the second amendment, that would be an interesting point. But there isn't. And I highly doubt there will be in my lifetime. That argument isn't quite ripe at this point for this issue, IMHO.

EDIT: Like farson pointed out, as well, in many cases, it's not cut and dry.

reonhato:
tech just explained it. just because you have the right to have a gun does not mean it cannot be controlled. restrict access to handguns and the major issues with guns are dealt with. forced registration, penalties for anyone who does not store guns safely, restrict the number of non collection guns per person, required mental health check and compulsory training and so on. there are a million ways to keep the right to bear arms while making america a much safer place to live. my favourite would be to only allow guns from the time the constitution was written.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

there is of course the fact that the constitution is old and horrible outdated and it is possible to change it.

Then change it and stop whining.

i also love how CM and farson use the exact same arguments whenever i post, they attack me and not the argument, they bring up some random survey of a tiny amount of people or a study conducted by the NRA and say that proves they are right, ignoring the countless studies from around the world that shows the opposite.

Wow, I have seen such a person so blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. How about you go ONE gun debate without bringing up the NRA. Think you can manage that? I doubt it.

TechNoFear:

Even then the majority of Americans favor stricter firearm controls;
"While the American public backs the view that gun ownership is a constitutional right, Americans favor having legal restrictions on it. In the same poll, 49% favor stricter gun laws than exist now and 38% would like to see gun laws remain as they are. Just 11% advocate gun laws that are less strict."

So 49% want stricter controls and 49% don't and you say that the antis have the majority. Amazing.

Scientific studies show repeatedly that less firearms means less mass murders, less homicides and less suicides.

Then why don't you explain Lithuania. They have one of the lowest gun ownership rates on earth and also double the homicide rate and 3 times the suicide rate of the US.

Also, why don't you try explaining away the fact that there are more guns in the US than ever before and more people own guns but suicide and murder is dropping. You can't because the idea that something other than guns is to blame is abhorrent to you.

Bail is always so obscenely high.

Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?

Zekksta:
Bail is always so obscenely high.

Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?

I would say he's in more danger than anything else. If he gets locked up, at least he'll be guarded for the time being.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked