The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool…

His holster was side hip. Quit trying to say it was to the back hip. We are not that stupid to buy your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that Zimmerman or anyone else for that matter drives sitting on their gun.

 

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make you right. .

So duh, it's easy to bridge up or manuver to gain access.

It's not difficult at all. If the gun was visible it can be presented.

Jumping the gun (pun intended) eh sport? There is no such thing as a "perfect direct, front to back shot........ unless it was intended. I submit to you that the wound you speak of was not intended, but merely a result. Nothing more, nothing less.

First of all, although it may be :fallacious" as well, I said it was a specious premise... jut like your coxing of a self-defense lesson from me.

I already did. Again, if you had any backgroud you would know this.

 

LOL!! The EMT says that his head and face was 45% covered in blood.

 

I seriously, can not even believe that anyone on earth thinks a reenactment is the exact same thing of what happened during an actual attack.

 

While I may not agree with this person when it comes to the guilt or innocence of GZ. The part about knowing a blow by blow account of the fight can not be known. GZ can't even provide that, his memory is just not capable of it due to the stress of the event.

But the defense will need to explain how GZ getting beat up so badly was able to get his weapon. It will need to be explained in a manner that someone with no training in close quarters combat can understand. Blowing off people on a message board with "if you understood" isn't going to work on a jury.

 

Yes I have restrained someones hand between my arm and chest and there is nothing of note about the path of the bullet that it went from the front to the back.

 

The defense doesn't have to explain anything, the prosecution will have to show with conclusive evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt it was not self-defense, Contrary to some poster uninformed amazement there is nothing to his statement about how he grabbed the gun or the shot itself that does any such thing.

 

Agreed.

As you say, this is not a jury. I suspect that the jury will get all the details they need. This is just a message board and I was pointing out that what GZ says he did in the struggle is congruent with self-defense and personal protection training scenarios and anyone familar with such things would know that. I wasn't blowing anyone off -- at least that wasn't my intention, nor was it my intention go in the direction that would require a short novel to explain the details of such defensive actions. There's not enough time for that.

 

Actually they will unless they are in agreement with how the events are told by the prosecution.

 

No they don't because the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not acting in self defense, if they can't which I don't believe they can he doesn't have to explain a thing.

What evidence does the prosecution have that proves conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt the shot was not fired in self-defense does he have to explain? The prosecution can't just say maybe.

 

His holster was to the BACK of his hip. . .behind the side seam of his pants.

I never pretended it was to his BACK, but to the BACK OF HIS HIP.

Zimmerman CLEARLY demonstrate the location when he slides his own hand BEHIND his pants pocket, behind the side seam of his pants, to the point that most of his hand disappears behind his hip, although the video was shot from that side.

NO ONE asks you to believe ME. . ..but can you doubt your own eyes?

Go watch the video reenactment and stop the video at the exact time where Zimmerman shows where he kept his gun. . .the still frame CLEARLY Shows the location, and it is to the BACK SIDE OF HIS HIP. . .BEHIND his pants pocket.

Just watch this video and stop it to see the still frame at minute 3:17 through 3:19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY

 

WRONG! It is certainly notable that the bullet went in DIRECTLY FRONT TO BACK (no angle in any direction. . .not up to down, not left to right, not right to left, not down to up) since such a "perfect" trajectory straight into the heart is almost impossible to achieve in any circumstances. . .but much less with a moving target like a person fighting!

Go to the official autopsy report. It clearly says that the direction of the bullet was "DIRECTLY, FRONT TO BACK." (page 1 of autopsy report)
It also states exactly the location of the bullet hole: "17 1/2 inches from the top of the head, one inch to the left of the anterior midline of the chest, and 1/2 inch below the left nipple" (page 3 of autopsy report)

And you didn't restrain someone's hand betwen your upper arm and chest, while at the same time reaching (with the same hand) for your gun placed at the BACK SIDE of your hip, while you were being PINNED on the ground. And in that position, AIMED at a MOVING TARGET and successfully hit a DIRECT FRONT TO BACK shot 1" from the median of the moving target's chest, straight into the heart.

That is just not possible.

 

Maybe you should avoid using words you do not know. Obviously, you do not know what "specious" means, or you would know that the MAIN element in the definition is a apparently reasonable argument or statement that is in fact FALLACIOUS.

And. . I agree with you on one point. It is not because I disagree that I am right. . .no more than the fact that you believe every word Zimmerman says makes YOU right!

I also agree that there is no "perfect shot" unless it is carefully aimed by a trained gunman.

And this is one more reason to believe that ONLY a CAREFULLY AIMED shot at a STILL target could have resulted in the "directly, front to back, 1" from the anterior midline of the victim's chest, 1/2 below his nipple" that was recorded on the 24th of February, 2012 by the Medical Examiner.

And. . .no, dear. . .your using "big words" that you do not clearly understand to describe a comment that you do not agree with is certainly NOT an explanation of what is wrong with the comment that makes you so sure that it is FALLACIOUS!

But your reluctance to explain yourself and to provide arguments that would show why my statement is so "specious" is enough to convince me that you just do not have a valid reason to contradict that statement.

 

Well, I guess that the picture that zimbots are so happy to post every so often of Zimmerman's "bloodied face" clearly contradict that EMT!

So. . .where is that OTHER picture with the 45% blood coverage?

The WORST "bloody" pictures I've seen merely show 5 to 10% of blood on Zimmerman's face and head. . .

Please provide that other "proof" that contradict the picture you guys love to show so much. . that was reportedly taken seconds after the police arrive, PRIOR to Zimmerman getting less than 5 minutes of "clean up" with a q-tip and some peroxide. . .no stitches, not even a butterfly bandaid needing to be applied by that "Zealous" EMT (as seen in the video and pictures taken just 15 minutes later at the police station).

 

The POLICE recommended that he be charged with manslaughter with the use of unnecessary deadly force.

The prosecutor decided otherwise. . . why? I guess we may never know. . .but the fact is that he is gone, and the next prosecutor did follow the Police's first recommendation.

 

You don't have an exact to the degree of the trajectory but that it went straight from front to back. So what? And according to what forensic expert is it impossible to shot someone straight through the chest?

Yes I have read it so what?

Yes all that could be done. There is no reason to believe it could be done. You don't know the exact movements or placement of each of the individuals at the time the shot was fired.

Says who? Cite the forensic expert who has reviewed the evidence and states that as a fact.

 

There were several pictures including the one showing the back of his head almost totally covered in blood. Are you suggesting the EMT committed perjury on the stand knowing that the pictures existed.

Once again your amazement, stooped in your investment in declaring Zimmerman guilty, does not refute the evidence.

OH well THAT conclusively proves the EMT committed perjury when he testified.

 

He draws from side hip. You are seeing things. His thumb is partially obscured by his front hip pocket. It isn't behind his hip.

 

You are entirely free to believe in Santa Claus!

Or in Zimmerman's "super power" with a gun!

- - - Updated - - -

His hand is "obscured" by his front hip pocket. . . which means that his hand is reaching to the BACK of his hip . . .behind the side seam of his pants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY still frame at minute 3:17 and 3:18

But, go ahead. . .deny the obvious. . .It's no skin of my back!

 

Are you saying that that "famous" picture that "proves" that Zimmerman had blood on his face seconds after the police arrived on the scene shows that Zimmerman's face was "45 to 50% covered in blood?"

And could you post the picture where the back of Zimmerman's head was "almost totally covered in blood?" I certainly didn't see it in the last year. . .did the defense "conceal evidence"?

Or maybe we don't use the same mathematical basis to calculate percentage?

You are so funny!

 

Front hip picket is to the front. Hence the name.

 

And this particular "front hip pocket" happens to be sawn in the side seam.

So. . everything behind the SIDE SEAM is . . .in the BACK of the hip

See that. . .the pocket is showing in FRONT of the seam. . .and Zimmerman's hand is (NOT) showing because it is to the BACK of the seam. . .to the BACK of the hip bone.

But why don't we stop it here. . . you will NOT recognize what is obvious to any casual observer of the still frame at minute 3:17 and 3:18 of the reenactement video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY), and I will NOT give up my sanity because you choose to deny reality.

So. . .enjoy Santa Claus!

 

Nothing super about it, the bullet trajectory shows nothing of note. I shoot you in the chest the bullet is likely to take the path it did.

You have yet to provide and reason to believe otherwise, where is a statement from a qualified forensic ballistics expert supporting your claim?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm talking about the several pictures in evidence and freely available to you on the web and the testimony under oath of the EMT, what do you have to refute it?

 

Duh! The pictures themselves refute it. . .if you know what percentage means!

That EMT is obviously an uneducated jerk if he really believes that those pictures show 40 to 45% blood coverage!

If you want to call it "perjury," be my guest! I just call it stupidity!

And regarding the trajectory of the bullet. . .sure, if two people are standing face to face, and not moving, and one has a chance to aim at a still target, there may be nothing "notable" with a direct, front to back, trajectory (if the heights of both men perfectly accomodate the 90 degree angle at which the bullet trajectory penetrate the chest).

But in the positions described by Zimmerman. . .you must be blind and dumb to believe there is "nothing notable" in that perfect shot!

But. . .I'm perfectly fine with your keeping your delusions. . .doesn't affect me a bit, nor will it affect the opinion of the jury!

 

Relax, no one is trying to knock you off your unicorn!