You’re totally illogical.
Zimmerman said Martin punched him, jumped him, pummeled him and beat his head on the concrete pavement.
That’s IMPOSSIBLE if there were no marks on Martin’s body.
Its really kind of incredible that an otherwise intelligent person with a predetermined opinion can look at a set of facts that proove him TOTALLY WRONG and reach the OPPOSITE conclusion.
If you were alive in 1492, you would say that Columbus was wrong and the world was really flat because he didn’t reach Asia by sailing west.
Zulu —
TO your point, boxers wear gloves to protect their hands.
But ...
grabbing a victim’s head will not make marks on your hands.
Also, it takes a hard punch on human tissue to break the skin on the knuckles. Even abrasions take a hard punch or numerous punches. Punches could have been deflected.
to wit, as an angry teen, I punched thru a (drywall) wall, both sides, in one punch, and did not break the skin on my knuckles.
IMPOSSIBLE (your word) is not necessarily a valid conclusion. Just sayin’
if zimmerman was on the receiving end of the beating then you woud not expect martin to exhibit any marks on his own body......but zimmerman would exhibit the marks..... your analysis is exactly backwards.
I know as a young man I absolutely had a fight in which I punched the other guy numerous times in the head. Never even a thought of hand bruises.
Next, it does not bruise you to lay hands on another and slam their head against the pavement.
It does not bruise one to sit on another while doing this.
Zimmerman apparently had the injuries of being punched in the nose, probably one good initial knockdown.
Subsequent punches probably were deflected, fended off, hence next move of slamming Z’s head back against the pavement.
Grabbing or threatening to grab Z’s gun does not cause bruising.
No one said this was a 20 minute steel cage match.
You punch a guy he falls, you jump on him and scuffle. You bang his head on the pavement. He shifts his body to the grass, pulls his gun and fires.
All this certain discussion of what happened is stupid and ill informed but the funeral director’s comments are not dispositive.
“Zimmerman said Martin punched him, jumped him, pummeled him and beat his head on the concrete pavement.
That’s IMPOSSIBLE if there were no marks on Martin’s body.”
Not at all. Zimmerman’s story is that Martin punched him in the nose, breaking it and knocking him to the ground. That’s soft tissue, and such a punch might very well not bruise at all.
Then, Martin straddled Zimmerman and began bashing his head against the ground. This is usually accomplished by grabbing the head, hair or ears, and pulling and pushing. No bruising involved.
I find it very possible that Martin would have suffered no or minimal bruising.
Why would Martin get have bruises or other injuries from beating Zimmerman?
By your logic, the fact that Zimmerman had no gun shot wounds proves he didn’t shoot Martin.
I disagree. I could sucker punch you, jump on top of you, beat you to a pulp, and not have a scratch or bruise.
Are you sure you don't have a typo in that. If Martin punched Zimmerman, jumped him, pummeled him, beat his head on the concrete pavement, it would be Zimmerman who has the marks on him, not Martin.
Please explain your reasoning if you think Martin should have had marks on him.
It sounds like a pretty neat arrangement if those who threw all the punches were the ones that got hurt. There sure would be a lot less fights in the world.
You don’t get busted knuckles when you’re holding a head with your palms as you’re knocking the head into the ground.
If you were alive in 1492, you would say that Columbus was wrong and the world was really flat because he didn’t reach Asia by sailing west....
If you watch 12 rounds of boxing you will see guys with no marks at all and guys that look beat to death.
This is probably not the right crowd to use hussein's "flat-worlder" reference on.
That aside, if you've ever been in a fight, you'd know the flesh your hands tend to come through unscathed. In fact it's entirely possible to break bones in your hand while not even bruising.
You have not presented us with any facts! Only the statement of the FAMILY’S funeral director. Talk about biased? This hired man will say whatever they want him to say. I’m surprised he didn’t say the only thing under his nails was ‘Skittles’.
That’s IMPOSSIBLE if there were no marks on Martin’s body.
Its really kind of incredible that an otherwise intelligent person with a predetermined opinion can look at a set of facts that proove him TOTALLY WRONG and reach the OPPOSITE conclusion.
You must be looking in the mirror. Zimmerman needs NO proof that Martin hit him, Zimmerman's head is gashed and nose was battered. These ARE PROVEN FACTS.
If there are no bruises on TMs body and face then, until the gunshot ocurred, it proves the confrontation was all one sided-- Martin on zimmerman.
You are totally illogical.
Zimmerman didn’t accuse Martin of bashing his own hands on the walk, it was Zimmerman’s head that should be bruised, not Martin’s knuckles. Martin was hitting soft flesh (nose) and holding Zimmerman’s head like a ball as he bashed it on the walk.
Mortician’s findings fully corroborate Zimmerman’s testimony, and that of the eye witness.
.