Page 122, Lab test by Amy Siewart, Crime Lab Analyst, Firearms Section.
"Both holes [in sweatshirt and hoodie] display residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot"
Of course we know why at this point you're trying to argue against things I've never said.
Actually, that would be you.
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
Page 122, Lab test by Amy Siewart, Crime Lab Analyst, Firearms Section.
"Both holes [in sweatshirt and hoodie] display residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot"
Of course we know why at this point you're trying to argue against things I've never said.
Actually, that would be you.
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
Um, more than a "simple autopsy" was conducted.
CBS & ABC news ran stories about the distance, trajectory, and powder burns. Where do you think they got that information?
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
Um, more than a "simple autopsy" was conducted.
CBS & ABC news ran stories about the distance, trajectory, and powder burns. Where do you think they got that information?
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
This woman was not conducting an "autopsy"
Is touching the clothing within centimeters?
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon’s gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
For the zillionth time, none of the above are pure ballistics tests, which would have determined the range of the gun within centimeters, not inches. That is a huge issue in this case. If the shot was fired from 18 inches away, that is clearly (and legally) enough room for Zimmerman to have disengaged.
On the other hand, one inch away completely supports his version of events.
If are the lawyer you claim, no doubt you would want to read this book because you would realize, as I did, you cannot have a discussion about bullet wounds based on a simple autopsy.
This woman was not conducting an "autopsy"
Is touching the clothing within centimeters?
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon’s gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
Except the article you linked stated these were autopsy results.
If you read the book I linked, you would understand that ballistic wound tests are completely different.
One fascinating area is measuring the body mass using computerized digital enhancement to determine angles, which can shift depending on the individual.
Except the article you linked stated these were autopsy results.
If you read the book I linked, you would understand that ballistic wound tests are completely different.
One fascinating area is measuring the body mass using computerized digital enhancement to determine angles, which can shift depending on the individual.
Except the article you linked stated these were autopsy results
dj,
the media's sloppiness (or ignorance?) is at work. They are obviously using "autopsy report' to cover everything that came from the medical examiner and state investigators.
If you read the book I linked, you would understand that ballistic wound tests are completely different.
I understand they are different and that a firearms expert is not a medical examiner or pathologist. I am not writing the articles, however.
Except the article you linked stated these were autopsy results
dj,
the media's sloppiness (or ignorance?) is at work. They are obviously using "autopsy report' to cover everything that came from the medical examiner and state investigators.
If you read the book I linked, you would understand that ballistic wound tests are completely different.
I understand they are different and that a firearms expert is not a medical examiner or pathologist. I am not writing the articles, however.
1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false.
2. It demonstrates he is willing to break the law
3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, This fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.
Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.
"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"
Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.
Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.
AND HE WAS RIGHT.
Narrative Epic Fail.
can you appear more like a emotionally passionate about this topic supporting such a loaded and biased perception? I wonder whats fueling the acute level of this intensity about the topic for the 14daroad alias?
1. The narrative pushed by the left - he was an innocent teen - is false.
2. It demonstrates he is willing to break the law
3. And most importantly, it is another piece of evidence validating Zimmerman's account of what happened. Specifically, This fact proves Zimmerman was nor arbitrarily 'profiling'.
Zimmerman clearly stated one of main reasons for his suspicion of Trayvon.
"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]"
Not because he was black or wearing a hoodie.
Because his behavior was consistent with someone on drugs.
AND HE WAS RIGHT.
Narrative Epic Fail.
can you appear more like a emotionally passionate about this topic supporting such a loaded and biased perception? I wonder whats fueling the acute level of this intensity about the topic for the 14daroad alias?
wtf is this a flash back to the first Great Depression?
speaking of depression, Zimmerman was on prescribed drugs, which we all know that the science says are much more dangerous then THC the active substance found in marijuana. SSRI's
your flash back makes me think of the reefer madness movie...
you are correct on the SSRIs being more dangerous then THC...
SSRIs have shown in some individuals the potential for impulsive/emotional decision making which increases risk of harm to self and/or others... typically someone depressed and homocidal/suicidal is not given an SSRI because it actually increases the risk of harm to self and others... There was a thread last year in the politics section that talked about this... and i am sure the drug companies will be paying off anyone possible to spin a perception that THC is more dangerous then the psychotropic pharmaceuticals they are peddling...
It amazes me that a simple plant that anyone can grow on their own results in so much fear and ignorance... and then reckless and senseless spending of government money and resource for the war on marijuana... not to mention the court/jail/prison/rehab/probation/po/drugtesting and pure bureaucracy needed for directors and upper management to simply take a cut off the top and pay themselves more then people actually doing the services...
It really takes a commitment to ignorance to get to where we are now with the "business of stopping weed"...
wtf is this a flash back to the first Great Depression?
speaking of depression, Zimmerman was on prescribed drugs, which we all know that the science says are much more dangerous then THC the active substance found in marijuana. SSRI's
your flash back makes me think of the reefer madness movie...
you are correct on the SSRIs being more dangerous then THC...
SSRIs have shown in some individuals the potential for impulsive/emotional decision making which increases risk of harm to self and/or others... typically someone depressed and homocidal/suicidal is not given an SSRI because it actually increases the risk of harm to self and others... There was a thread last year in the politics section that talked about this... and i am sure the drug companies will be paying off anyone possible to spin a perception that THC is more dangerous then the psychotropic pharmaceuticals they are peddling...
It amazes me that a simple plant that anyone can grow on their own results in so much fear and ignorance... and then reckless and senseless spending of government money and resource for the war on marijuana... not to mention the court/jail/prison/rehab/probation/po/drugtesting and pure bureaucracy needed for directors and upper management to simply take a cut off the top and pay themselves more then people actually doing the services...
It really takes a commitment to ignorance to get to where we are now with the "business of stopping weed"...
Alan Dershowitz says the charges should be dropped and that the Special Prosecutor acted unethically:
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately
withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The
New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of
Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied
nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the
back of his head.
================== This may not turn out too well for Ms. Corey's political career.
Alan Dershowitz says the charges should be dropped and that the Special Prosecutor acted unethically:
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately
withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The
New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of
Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied
nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the
back of his head.
================== This may not turn out too well for Ms. Corey's political career.
why dont you engage in a political discussion rather then cutting and pasting more obsessive details about non-political topics...
cutting and pasting and bashing seems like all you can do...
Reminds me of the KKroger Alias... If he could engage in a civil discussion about politics I thinking he would have... but willing and able are two different things
why dont you engage in a political discussion rather then cutting and pasting more obsessive details about non-political topics...
cutting and pasting and bashing seems like all you can do...
Reminds me of the KKroger Alias... If he could engage in a civil discussion about politics I thinking he would have... but willing and able are two different things
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman viciously pummeling him to the head......then somehow separated himself from Zimmerman at which point Zimmerman shot him some feet away killing him.....how does Zimmerman claim self defense? Zimmerman defense would be in a better posture if the shot occured in close quarters during the exchange of blows.....If the shot occured some number of feet away I don't see how he can claim self defense. Martin at some point had to see the gun and when he did logic dictates that he retreated at that point....
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman viciously pummeling him to the head......then somehow separated himself from Zimmerman at which point Zimmerman shot him some feet away killing him.....how does Zimmerman claim self defense? Zimmerman defense would be in a better posture if the shot occured in close quarters during the exchange of blows.....If the shot occured some number of feet away I don't see how he can claim self defense. Martin at some point had to see the gun and when he did logic dictates that he retreated at that point....
your flash back makes me think of the reefer madness movie...
you are correct on the SSRIs being more dangerous then THC...
SSRIs have shown in some individuals the potential for impulsive/emotional decision making which increases risk of harm to self and/or others... typically someone depressed and homocidal/suicidal is not given an SSRI because it actually increases the risk of harm to self and others... There was a thread last year in the politics section that talked about this...
and i am sure the drug companies will be paying off anyone possible to spin a perception that THC is more dangerous then the psychotropic pharmaceuticals they are peddling...
It amazes me that a simple plant that anyone can grow on their own results in so much fear and ignorance... and then reckless and senseless spending of government money and resource for the war on marijuana... not to mention the court/jail/prison/rehab/probation/po/drugtesting and pure bureaucracy needed for directors and upper management to simply take a cut off the top and pay themselves more then people actually doing the services...
It really takes a commitment to ignorance to get to where we are now with the "business of stopping weed"...
your flash back makes me think of the reefer madness movie...
you are correct on the SSRIs being more dangerous then THC...
SSRIs have shown in some individuals the potential for impulsive/emotional decision making which increases risk of harm to self and/or others... typically someone depressed and homocidal/suicidal is not given an SSRI because it actually increases the risk of harm to self and others... There was a thread last year in the politics section that talked about this...
and i am sure the drug companies will be paying off anyone possible to spin a perception that THC is more dangerous then the psychotropic pharmaceuticals they are peddling...
It amazes me that a simple plant that anyone can grow on their own results in so much fear and ignorance... and then reckless and senseless spending of government money and resource for the war on marijuana... not to mention the court/jail/prison/rehab/probation/po/drugtesting and pure bureaucracy needed for directors and upper management to simply take a cut off the top and pay themselves more then people actually doing the services...
It really takes a commitment to ignorance to get to where we are now with the "business of stopping weed"...
I already posted a link to that. The shot was fired with the gun touching Martin's sweatshirt.
See the link in post #80
Assuming this proves to be the case, what do we think it shows? I think ti can actually cut either way, depending also on other facts.
It's positive for Zimmerman in that, if proven, they were not likely disengaged at the time of shooting.
On the other hand, at that distance where you might well be able to point the gun where you want, why did he point and shoot straight through the heart? Was he honestly struggling for control of the gun?
I already posted a link to that. The shot was fired with the gun touching Martin's sweatshirt.
See the link in post #80
Assuming this proves to be the case, what do we think it shows? I think ti can actually cut either way, depending also on other facts.
It's positive for Zimmerman in that, if proven, they were not likely disengaged at the time of shooting.
On the other hand, at that distance where you might well be able to point the gun where you want, why did he point and shoot straight through the heart? Was he honestly struggling for control of the gun?
Assuming this proves to be the case, what do we think it shows? I think ti can actually cut either way, depending also on other facts.
It's positive for Zimmerman in that, if proven, they were not likely disengaged at the time of shooting.
On the other hand, at that distance where you might well be able to point the gun where you want, why did he point and shoot straight through the heart? Was he honestly struggling for control of the gun?
Depeche,
it certainly proves that Zimmerman didn't gun Martin down for "looking suspicious" as was alleged by the left wing race hustlers.
Assuming this proves to be the case, what do we think it shows? I think ti can actually cut either way, depending also on other facts.
It's positive for Zimmerman in that, if proven, they were not likely disengaged at the time of shooting.
On the other hand, at that distance where you might well be able to point the gun where you want, why did he point and shoot straight through the heart? Was he honestly struggling for control of the gun?
Depeche,
it certainly proves that Zimmerman didn't gun Martin down for "looking suspicious" as was alleged by the left wing race hustlers.
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman viciously pummeling him to the head......then somehow separated himself from Zimmerman at which point Zimmerman shot him some feet away killing him.....how does Zimmerman claim self defense? Zimmerman defense would be in a better posture if the shot occured in close quarters during the exchange of blows.....If the shot occured some number of feet away I don't see how he can claim self defense. Martin at some point had to see the gun and when he did logic dictates that he retreated at that point....
What am I missing here?
You need to pay closer attention. You don't get powder burns on the hoodie from as far away as you are talking.
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman viciously pummeling him to the head......then somehow separated himself from Zimmerman at which point Zimmerman shot him some feet away killing him.....how does Zimmerman claim self defense? Zimmerman defense would be in a better posture if the shot occured in close quarters during the exchange of blows.....If the shot occured some number of feet away I don't see how he can claim self defense. Martin at some point had to see the gun and when he did logic dictates that he retreated at that point....
What am I missing here?
You need to pay closer attention. You don't get powder burns on the hoodie from as far away as you are talking.
You need to pay closer attention. You don't get powder burns on the hoodie from as far away as you are talking.
Well, three feet away may be too much, but there would also potentially be an argument against self-defense if Z was 18 inches away, a distance that would still leave powder burns (technically, with the handgun used by Z, powder burns can be left by a shot being fired three feet way, and powder residue at an even further distance).
The pattern and asymmetry of burns that has been reported seem to support the accounts that place Zimmerman at close range, but inches in close range, for purposes of defense claims, can effectually be miles. The real question becomes was disengagment theoretically possible. One has to imagine, howeever, that in the absence of preciseness, the argument of reasonable doubt is only enhanced.
You need to pay closer attention. You don't get powder burns on the hoodie from as far away as you are talking.
Well, three feet away may be too much, but there would also potentially be an argument against self-defense if Z was 18 inches away, a distance that would still leave powder burns (technically, with the handgun used by Z, powder burns can be left by a shot being fired three feet way, and powder residue at an even further distance).
The pattern and asymmetry of burns that has been reported seem to support the accounts that place Zimmerman at close range, but inches in close range, for purposes of defense claims, can effectually be miles. The real question becomes was disengagment theoretically possible. One has to imagine, howeever, that in the absence of preciseness, the argument of reasonable doubt is only enhanced.
Well, three feet away may be too much, but there would also potentially be an argument against self-defense if Z was 18 inches away, a distance that would still leave powder burns (technically, with the handgun used by Z, powder burns can be left by a shot being fired three feet way, and powder residue at an even further distance).
The pattern and asymmetry of burns that has been reported seem to support the accounts that place Zimmerman at close range, but inches in close range, for purposes of defense claims, can effectually be miles. The real question becomes was disengagment theoretically possible. One has to imagine, howeever, that in the absence of preciseness, the argument of reasonable doubt is only enhanced.
Trayvon's autopsy showed that he died of a shot to the heart and that the gun was so close, it had left gunpowder burns on his skin.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon's gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
Well, three feet away may be too much, but there would also potentially be an argument against self-defense if Z was 18 inches away, a distance that would still leave powder burns (technically, with the handgun used by Z, powder burns can be left by a shot being fired three feet way, and powder residue at an even further distance).
The pattern and asymmetry of burns that has been reported seem to support the accounts that place Zimmerman at close range, but inches in close range, for purposes of defense claims, can effectually be miles. The real question becomes was disengagment theoretically possible. One has to imagine, howeever, that in the absence of preciseness, the argument of reasonable doubt is only enhanced.
Trayvon's autopsy showed that he died of a shot to the heart and that the gun was so close, it had left gunpowder burns on his skin.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon's gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
he will be found innocent......and I wonder if the race baiters who say he was hunted down like a rabid dog etc will issue an apology for their inflammatory comments?
he will be found innocent......and I wonder if the race baiters who say he was hunted down like a rabid dog etc will issue an apology for their inflammatory comments?
Trayvon's autopsy showed that he died of a shot to the heart and that the gun was so close, it had left gunpowder burns on his skin.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon's gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
Or see post #80
I've already read this. There have been other conclusions that the gun was 1-18 inches away. I am not convinced that her examination would be able to definitively make the conclusion that the gun was touching because the same wound, burns, and residue would occur at a distance of give or take 18 inches.
In other words, she made be right about the gun touching, and there is room for error in this conclusion as well.
Trayvon's autopsy showed that he died of a shot to the heart and that the gun was so close, it had left gunpowder burns on his skin.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon's gray sweat shirt and gray hoodie for powder burns and wrote that she found them on both garments, prompting her to conclude that the muzzle of the gun was touching them when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
Or see post #80
I've already read this. There have been other conclusions that the gun was 1-18 inches away. I am not convinced that her examination would be able to definitively make the conclusion that the gun was touching because the same wound, burns, and residue would occur at a distance of give or take 18 inches.
In other words, she made be right about the gun touching, and there is room for error in this conclusion as well.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.