JFC people. In the real world when people are shot blood typically just slowly oozes out.

It's entirely plausible that GZ shot him from underneath, pushed himself out from underneath and got up, blood free.

Real life =/= Grand Theft Auto...

Cops have been proven pretty useless in this case. Who the **** knows if they collected evidence correctly.

Not covered in blood necessarily, but he'd have blood on him if he was directly underneath when he shot, right?

At what point will the hispanic community stand up and say "there is evidence that the self defense claim may be legit, we need to stop the presumption of guilt and have a fair and unbiased trial here"?

To really answer that I'd need to see where the round went.

personally, for me in that situation I'm drawing the gun,pulling it up as close to my body as possible and firing in a slightly upward motion.

I imagine my round would hit low center mass, somewhere in the upper abdomin.

I think it's pretty reasonable for people to believe that there would be some of Martin's blood on GZ if he shot him with Martin on top of him. You don't have to play too much GTA to reach that conclusion.

From what little we know, it seems Trayvon died fairly quickly which to me says heart, lungs, or aorta (which could be an upper abdomen hit).

Um, not really. Even if it's not gushing out of the body, some of it's still going to get on you.

Ive been wondering where he was shot. To get someone off of you. a shot to an arm or a leg would suffice, wouldnt it?

Reasonable man standard doesn't apply to the actual injuries suffered, I don't think. You don't have to suffer great bodily harm, you just have to have a reasonable fear it was imminently likely. It certainly bolsters your self-defense argument if you do in fact suffer serious injury, but my understanding is it's not necessary.

Pretty sure that it's sop to shoot to kill or at least shoot to the body if you're going to use deadly force. I think shooting arms/knees is not recommended by law enforcement but Double will have to confirm

+1

Trying to shoot for an extremity is both more difficult than shooting center mass (smaller targets, more mobile) and could be evidence that you weren't really in fear of the harm you claim you were about to suffer.

Im not a Zimmerman apologist but I'll give it a shot.

There isn't a report of there not being blood on his shirt is there? My guess it whomever leaked the grass stains on the back of his shirt to the media did so to get the story out that Zimmerman may have been on his back losing a fight.

If this is true and he shot Martin from this position, I'd imagine there will be blood on his shirt also regardless of whether it was mentioned to the media or not. It was leaked for a specific reason imo, and including blood as part of the stains probably wasn't the image they were trying to send out (even if it helps his case)

Two things:
1) TM was reported to have been wearing a hoodie, which are usually made of pretty thick cotton. It's going to absorb pretty well.

2) How long are you under the impression he left TM on top of him? I can't speak for him, but as for me I'm on my feet within a matter of about 1.5 seconds.

I'm not just laying there, I'm getting up QUICK.

At very close range an extremity is not so difficult. The goal is to stop the attack, not to kill, no?

Whether the responding cops noticed or not, I would imagine the forensic investigation would settle the question.

cpitt,

I'm confused. There being blood on his shirt may be evidence that Zimm was on his back with Tray on top of him when he shot him. That makes Zimm look LESS guilty.

Why would anyone whose agenda was to show Zimm was losing the fight at the time of the shooting... leave out the evidence that most clearly points to that?

The gun's holstered in his waistband. In order to accurately shoot an extremity, he likely has to sweep Martin's CoM anyway. And shooting an extremity may not stop the fight.

Literally no one reputable who teaches anything about using a gun defensively advises shooting for the arm or leg.

I mean I've obviously never shot anyone but IF I was in fear of great bodily injury I'm shooting to kill to make sure he doesn't continue the attack. Say you shoot him in the shoulder and he's carrying too, you're ****ed. If you introduce deadly force, you should be shooting to kill imo.

This is where me and the other side seem to disagree. I think of Zimmerman as a general menace. He's a righteous criminal vigilante who is trying to do something that is not his job. The self defense crowd wants to look only at who threw the first punch. Which I don't think we will ever know since the witness only knows who was on top. Or more, I am not sure I trust this leak of the witness' account. I don't really trust any of the people in this story. I don't know who the witness is at all and Zimmerman is a complete loon.

Based on the facts that we know absolutely for sure I think of attempt of Zimmerman to drive down the street and follow with the intent to get out of his car and engage Martin with a gun on him he became the aggressor in the situation. I think that Martin was acting in self defense. If a fight ensued and Martin got the upper it does not show that Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I don't think there was a reason for Zimmerman to be driving around with a gun looking to engage black kids. That was his plan. When he executed his plan **** got out of hand and he killed someone. Distractions about who was on top at what time is not relevant to the fact that Zimmerman approached Martin from his vehicle with a gun, for no reason, and got out of his car and eventually killed him. The grey area in between is speculation at best.

If you come up out of the blue and punch me in the nose? You're going to have to expand slightly on this hypothetical. I would probable have the right to shoot you.

Yes. In your last part I think you do not have the right to shoot me if you punch me and I grab my gun. You deserve to punished at the very least. Arrested for violating the law. If there is no law that covers punching me in the face then that's pretty ****ed.

Then killing Martin was the right thing to do, according to the experts.

I agree it helps him but I can see why someone would leave it out. It reverts the mind back to Zimmerman killing Martin instead of Zimmerman taking a beating.

There is probably some sort of theory in public relations 305 that the less dots the public has to connect the better.

I'm not saying this is what happened, just pointing out it is possible and the omission of blood in the leak doesn't mean it wasn't there

The description of Zimmerman's shirt was part of the partial police report that was released.

If GZ's defense attorney says "GZ didn't intend to engage TM, he wanted to keep an eye on where he went so he could tell the cops where to go."

How do you refute that as the prosecution?

ok, so maybe there were no visible blood stains. I thought it was just leaked info to the media