Quote:

---

and what exactly is a cautionary diagnosis?  I've never heard that term used- ever.


The PA testified that she thought his nose was broken or that it was quite possible (forget which) but that they didn't do cranial xrays at her office so he was referred to an ENT.  Are you suggesting that before xrays were a part of medicine that nobody got diagnosed with a broken bone because "further tests were needed"?

---

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
Why not? It is John. He is always down for a debate.

---

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:

Quote:

---

and what exactly is a cautionary diagnosis?  I've never heard that term used- ever.


The PA testified that she thought his nose was broken or that it was quite possible (forget which) but that they didn't do cranial xrays at her office so he was referred to an ENT.  Are you suggesting that before xrays were a part of medicine that nobody got diagnosed with a broken bone because "further tests were needed"?

---

No, I am suggesting that after X-rays were invented, they could be used to draw conclusions that the eye could not determine without them in some cases. In other words, if his nose was nearly broken but it was not that bad... and not bad enough for Zimmerman to get a check up after getting the diagnosis he probably wanted to get in the first place, in order to prove self defense, he'd stick with the cautionary diagnosis (1st do no harm. Err on the side of caution). I wonder if they suggested he have a check up, or more tests... seems they needed them to prove his nose was broken difinitively, on the witness stand.

---

Quote:

---

psilynut said:

Quote:

---

Are you aware that the doctor who treated him the next morning diagnosed a "closed fracture" of his nose?

---

Ok so that explains one punch . What about the other 25 to 30 ? So there's an X-ray of his broken nose right?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And what basis do you have to say any of these things?  Why would he need stitches if his head had been slammed onto the concrete?  Stitches are only useful for a limited class of injuries, and the PA explained exactly why she didn't stitch the wound: it wasn't neccessary.

What do you base your claim that he didn't need to go to the ER on, and what does it matter?


You don't need to suffer any injury at all to use deadly force- this whole argument is just horseshit.

---

I've seen allot of fights , and I've seen people get heir heads slammed on concrete 2 times , in both instances it was lights out for that person immediately . Game over  . He just doesn't look like he got the beating he is describing , that's all . Barley an argument really , why so defensive?

---

Quote:

---

rodfarva said:

Disagree, there is precedent in florida that a fist fight escalating into zimmerman getting his head slammed on the ground and verbal threats of "im gona kill you" could rebuke the initial aggressor issue.

In this case a fist fight started, then theoretically martin used the ground or cement as a deadly weapon making it ok for zimmerman to shoot. Im sure the defense will bring up the fact that Z didnt start it and Martin used a deadly weapon first.

---

Quote:

---

TalesfromtheTrypt said:
I obviously don't speak for anybody here, but I think a lot of people don't view this in terms of civil rights, as much as a disagreement over the scope of self defense laws. Remember, this didn't become a big deal until it went national, this kind of shit is normal in the south, but up north you're more likely to find people who are simply amazed that anyone could even be legally shot to death in a fistfight.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

rodfarva said:

Disagree, there is precedent in florida that a fist fight escalating into zimmerman getting his head slammed on the ground and verbal threats of "im gona kill you" could rebuke the initial aggressor issue.

In this case a fist fight started, then theoretically martin used the ground or cement as a deadly weapon making it ok for zimmerman to shoot. Im sure the defense will bring up the fact that Z didnt start it and Martin used a deadly weapon first.

---

You're talking about sudden escalation issue, which I've been intentionally ignoring because it doesn't apply in this case.  There's no evidence to support the notion that this was a sudden escalation situation. No one has offered evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, so escalation doesn't matter.  Also, there's no evidence that there was a "fist fight" at all.  Martin had no injuries consistent with being hit, and Zimmerman says he never hit Martin.

I agree that even if Zimmerman started it, there is a possible self-defense available under the escalation doctrine, but I don't see it really applying in this case since we haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman was initial aggressor.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:


P.S.  I mean absolutely no offense when I say that your issue spotting/separation skills have dramatically improved.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:
Lol...this Skype testimony is a clusterfuck.

---

Saw a video of that on drudge today during my lunch break.  me and my office mate got a big kick out of it

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

TalesfromtheTrypt said:
I obviously don't speak for anybody here, but I think a lot of people don't view this in terms of civil rights, as much as a disagreement over the scope of self defense laws. Remember, this didn't become a big deal until it went national, this kind of shit is normal in the south, but up north you're more likely to find people who are simply amazed that anyone could even be legally shot to death in a fistfight.

---

People can be amazed all they want, but under the facts of this case, it would be self-defense in every state in this country and many other countries as well.

---

Quote:

---

TalesfromtheTrypt said:
Sure, and the basic reasoning is that drug laws were made to protect society, and yet our jails are full of pot smokers. You misleadingly imply that everyone who has legally killed someone under protection of these laws would have otherwise been "almost dead" (or obviously worse), when you and I both know that plenty of people have been legally killed who most certainly would not have left their respective gunmen "almost dead." Now if you're asking me if I think you should be allowed to instigate a fight, then shoot the guy dead when you're losing because now you're afraid he's going to inflict serious bodily harm on you, then you're damn right I don't. If someone needs to walk around with a firearm to protect themselves against unarmed people, they are pussies who are hiding behind archaic laws, in my opinion. Furthermore, if the only justification you need to kill somebody is to be in a fistfight with them, then that means every one of us (assuming we've all been in a fight before) could have been legally killed at some point in our lives, and that we are all only alive because we were all fortunate enough not to have had some asshole take it upon himself to "defend" himself by killing us. Does that sound fair to you?

---