Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[Big Blue 06 195]

Guy with GUN kills unarmed guy, and people believe guy with GUN was acting in self defense. The pussifocation of America continues. MK Ultra.

 

They should make a new law. If you're a who needs a gun everywhere you go, you can't claim self defense when you're acting like a wannabe badass and kill someone.

 

Let me preface what I'm about to say by mentioning that I voted in this thread (before the trial) that Zimmerman was guilty of Murder 2, so I have no love for Zim. In fact, he strikes me as a dooshbag that was looking for trouble where there likely wasn't any.

 

Having said that, it's looking pretty strong right now for Zimmerman acting in self defense. He may have initiated the problem by following Martin, but it appears that he did shoot him in self defense. I say that it appears that way, but obviously the trial isn't over and things could change. However, why would you say that he wasn't acting in self defense when it appears so far that he was.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

 

Let me preface what I'm about to say by mentioning that I voted in this thread (before the trial) that Zimmerman was guilty of Murder 2, so I have no love for Zim. In fact, he strikes me as a dooshbag that was looking for trouble where there likely wasn't any.

 

Having said that, it's looking pretty strong right now for Zimmerman acting in self defense. He may have initiated the problem by following Martin, but it appears that he did shoot him in self defense. I say that it appears that way, but obviously the trial isn't over and things could change. However, why would you say that he wasn't acting in self defense when it appears so far that he was.

I think it's more a question of what self defense really means. Should the guy be able to create the circumstances where killing another man is necessary, then get off scott free because of self defense? Seems ridiculous. Then again if he had to kill the guy to preserve his own life, would we say he lost that right by harassing Martin to start with? Can't really say that either.

 

But the bigger question is, was shooting Martin really necessary? If he was just gonna get his but whooped then shouldn't he have just taken his lumps? I can't imagine Martin was really going to beat Zimmerman to death or something. Does anyone really think that was a possibility? It's an honest question. So maybe Zimmerman gets his butt whooped and is consequently humiliated. It sucks but that's why you don't harass strangers, especially when the cops told you not to. Doesn't mean you get to end the guy's life.

 

I dunno, before the trial I was convinced that Zimmerman was pissed that the kid would confront him and have the nerve to fight back, so he essentially killed him in a moment of rage. But the evidence makes it sound more like Zimmerman was a weeny, got in over his head, and probably overreacted in killing Martin because he was terrified of taking a beating. I wouldn't call that self defense but it sure doesn't sound like murder either.

[Big Blue 06 195]

I think it's more a question of what self defense really means. Should the guy be able to create the circumstances where killing another man is necessary, then get off scott free because of self defense? Seems ridiculous. Then again if he had to kill the guy to preserve his own life, would we say he lost that right by harassing Martin to start with? Can't really say that either.

 

But the bigger question is, was shooting Martin really necessary? If he was just gonna get his but whooped then shouldn't he have just taken his lumps? I can't imagine Martin was really going to beat Zimmerman to death or something. Does anyone really think that was a possibility? It's an honest question. So maybe Zimmerman gets his butt whooped and is consequently humiliated. It sucks but that's why you don't harass strangers, especially when the cops told you not to. Doesn't mean you get to end the guy's life.

 

I dunno, before the trial I was convinced that Zimmerman was pissed that the kid would confront him and have the nerve to fight back, so he essentially killed him in a moment of rage. But the evidence makes it sound more like Zimmerman was a weeny, got in over his head, and probably overreacted in killing Martin because he was terrified of taking a beating. I wouldn't call that self defense but it sure doesn't sound like murder either.

You raise some interesting questions. You're right, there should be some responsibility that Zimmerman has to bear for creating the situation. However, I don't see that as Murder 2, perhaps not even manslaughter.

 

I would likely say that shooting Martin wasn't really necessary. Perhaps (and probably) Martin would have punched him a couple of times and been on his way and that would have been the end of it. However, I can't say that with 100% certainty? I don't think anybody could. How many stories have we all seen on the news or online where some people beat someone to death for disrespecting them or just for fun? Or how about the stories where person A punches person B, person B falls and hits their head on the ground, killing them. It's certainly rare but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

 

As for the part where you said "But the evidence makes it sound more like Zimmerman was a weeny, got in over his head, and probably overreacted in killing Martin because he was terrified of taking a beating. I wouldn't call that self defense but it sure doesn't sound like murder either." I think that this is exactly what happened . While Zimmerman shares responsibility for the whole situation, I don't think you can convict him of the crimes that he's accused of.

[Mungwater 588]

I don't think it was a moment of rage, the witnesses say that he was composed after.

 

That is the main question for me, is it self defense of you started it?

[BLS 313]

Here's where I lose other folks' train of thought.

 

A few points to make.

 

1. 911 is NOT the police. They have no authority over anyone. They can SUGGEST to do something, but it's not a lawful command.

2. Evidence and Zimmerman's statement suggests that he did NOT follow Martin. In fact, when 911 told him 'you don't need to follow him', he stopped, and began walking to a house to look for an address to give to 911. It was when he was walking back from that house that he stated Martin confronted him and asked him 'Do you have a problem?'. Zimmerman said "No, I don't have a problem", and reached for his cell phone to call 911 again. That's when he said that Martin punched him in the nose and then jumped on him as he was on the ground.

3. "Following" someone is NOT grounds to defend yourself unless you can attest in a court of law that you feared an offense was about to take place. Therefore Martin had no grounds to punch him (if that's in fact what happened...and we'll NEVER know that).

4. Zimmerman's account of that night has remained constant throughout several interviews with Police (before he was ever charged).

5. The police and prosecuting attorney all agreed there was no evidence suggesting GZ acted with malice and had nothing to charge him with.

 

How I see it is GZ was elected to be the Neighborhood watch captain after a rash of break-ins. As he patrolled the neighborhood he carried his sidearm with him (I would do the same thing).

He saw TM, and followed him in his truck, later stopped his truck so he could watch where TM was going (to relay to 911), and was confronted. He got his ass beat, and after having his head pounded off the concrete, probably feared he might actually die.

NOTE: he even stated that during this 'fight', his jacket rose up and TM saw his pistol in the holster. At that point, TM said to him "You're gonna die tonight motherfucker".

 

IF that's true, GZ isn't guilty of anything but being a total pussy.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

BLS, most of the stuff you reference is from before the trial. Zimmerman, for example, has not testified and likely won't. You gotta go with what has been introduced at trial.

 

Also I think everyone is aware that 911 can't order you to do anything. I admit I am sometimes in artful in stating that it was the OPERATOR who ADVISED him not to follow Zimmerman but I still think it's an important fact. They told him not to follow Zimmerman because that was the prudent course of action--the one that was least likely to lead to this exact circumstance or a similar bad ending. Zimmerman probably knew that himself but chose to follow Martin anyway depending on what you choose to believe.

[Bert 1,098]

So if you “feel” harassed it is you okay to start beating someone?

 

 

As I said when this first happened this is a situation of idiots colliding. The best thing would have been if both died. Dumb ass home owners’ association guy meets dumb ass punk gang banger wannabe.

 

 

Trevon's raising, culture or whatever made him think it was okay to start beating the cracker because he made him "feel" uncomfortable. Well this time the cracker had a gun.

 

GZ isn't innocent but he is no where near murder or man slaughter.

[mobb_deep 917]

You raise some interesting questions. You're right, there should be some responsibility that Zimmerman has to bear for creating the situation. However, I don't see that as Murder 2, perhaps not even manslaughter.

 

I would likely say that shooting Martin wasn't really necessary. Perhaps (and probably) Martin would have punched him a couple of times and been on his way and that would have been the end of it. However, I can't say that with 100% certainty? I don't think anybody could. How many stories have we all seen on the news or online where some people beat someone to death for disrespecting them or just for fun? Or how about the stories where person A punches person B, person B falls and hits their head on the ground, killing them. It's certainly rare but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

 

As for the part where you said "But the evidence makes it sound more like Zimmerman was a weeny, got in over his head, and probably overreacted in killing Martin because he was terrified of taking a beating. I wouldn't call that self defense but it sure doesn't sound like murder either." I think that this is exactly what happened . While Zimmerman shares responsibility for the whole situation, I don't think you can convict him of the crimes that he's accused of.

But we dont have any proof that Martin hit Zimmerman first?

 

All we have proof of is Zimmerman followed Martin, because he was a "focking punk". Some sort or altercation happened, with several different version of relevant details. Guy with gun shot guy with no gun.

 

And to answer your first question, like Worms alluded to... Yes, I think Zimmerman can't claim self defense, because he put himself in the situation to begin with. I don't even care if Martin hit him first. Carrying a loaded gun comes with a certain amount of inherited responsibility IMO.

[drobeski 3,061]

The riots are gonna be awesome and you can thank trayvons dad obama for them

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Oh so predictable.

[Voltaire 4,570]

The riots are gonna be awesome and you can thank trayvons dad obama for them

Being in the habit of blaming everything on President Obama is the reason you're having trouble getting the real things he's responsible for to stick.

 

HTH

[cbfalcon 824]

If you are going to walk around with a gun looking for criminals, you need to have already thought through all the possibilities and have a plan. You should be very aware that confrontation is possible and you need to know under exactly what circumstances you'll use your weapon. Most gun owners I know will tell you something similar.

A fist fight with a teenager doesn't seem to qualify.

It's not murder obviously. And I believe Zimmerman felt like he was acting in self defense. In between is manslaughter.

Right now I would handicap the odds at:
1% Murder 2
23% Manslaughter
75% Not Guilty on all charges
1% Other

[BLS 313]

If you are going to walk around with a gun looking for criminals, you need to have already thought through all the possibilities and have a plan. You should be very aware that confrontation is possible and you need to know under exactly what circumstances you'll use your weapon. Most gun owners I know will tell you something similar.

 

A fist fight with a teenager doesn't seem to qualify.

 

It's not murder obviously. And I believe Zimmerman felt like he was acting in self defense. In between is manslaughter.

 

Right now I would handicap the odds att:

1% Murder 2

23% Manslaughter

75% Not Guilty on all charges

1% Other

 

Agreed. Especially on having a plan. THE single most important aspect of self-defense is being AWARE of your environment. Had he not let Martin sneak up on him (assuming that happened that way), things would have likely turned out much different.

[BLS 313]

BLS, most of the stuff you reference is from before the trial. Zimmerman, for example, has not testified and likely won't. You gotta go with what has been introduced at trial.

 

 

Why? (serious question)

 

Because the thread is about the trial? I guarantee those interviews he gave the police are gonna show up at some point in the trial. Just because they haven't been introduced doesn't mean I haven't watched them (I have) and already know what's in them.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

Why? (serious question)

 

Because the thread is about the trial? I guarantee those interviews he gave the police are gonna show up at some point in the trial. Just because they haven't been introduced doesn't mean I haven't watched them (I have) and already know what's in them.

Yeah, because it's about the trial. The jury only knows what it hears and sees at trial.

 

As for the videos, Zimmerman is probably going to have to testify to get most of those in. Reason being that the State should have an opportunity to cross-examine on his statements.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Oh so predictable.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah, because it's about the trial. The jury only knows what it hears and sees at trial.

 

As for the videos, Zimmerman is probably going to have to testify to get most of those in. Reason being that the State should have an opportunity to cross-examine on his statements.

If I were a defense attorney I would just call all the cops who did the interviews and ask them questions to get all that entered into trial.

 

That was easy.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

If I were a defense attorney I would just call all the cops who did the interviews and ask them questions to get all that entered into trial.

 

That was easy.

And that permits cross-examination of Zimmerman, how?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And that permits cross-examination of Zimmerman, how?

It permits cross-examination of the cops who testify.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

It permits cross-examination of the cops who testify.

So what? They can't explain any inconsistencies or further elucidate what Zimmerman meant by his statements. It's hearsay, assuming Florida follows the federal rule on admissions.

[The Moz 69]

In a case that is going 100% Zimmerman's way and that's just based on the Prosecutions witnesses - why would any attorney allow his client to go up on the stand? The DA has nothing and is grasping at straws right now why give him a ray of hope of GZ testifying for him to cross. You don't fock up a case when it turns into a slam dunk to get your client off -- as for more testimony based on the witnesses hell it should be dismissed. I really wondering how the hell he was ever arrested 2when the Cops were 100% behind the self defense claim and knew thats what it was. Was it really the report from Ms. Jabba the hut that really got him arrested? Damn how the hell is that at all trustworthy. The longer this case goes the more pissed I am that it even went to trial as it's a blatant attempt to appease the Sharpton / Jesse crowd.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So what? They can't explain any inconsistencies or further elucidate what Zimmerman meant by his statements. It's hearsay, assuming Florida follows the federal rule on admissions.

Cops testifying as to what they asked GZ, and the answers he gave, is hearsay?

[IGotWorms 3,345]

Cops testifying as to what they asked GZ, and the answers he gave, is hearsay?

 

Yes, generally. If Zimmerman is questioning them then it is hearsay:

 

 

In the USA, a party admission, in the law of evidence, is any statement made by a declarant who is a party to a lawsuit, which is offered as evidence against that party. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, such a statement is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself, meaning that the statement itself is not considered hearsay at all. This is a category of exemptions to the inadmissibility of out-of-court statements. When the term "exemption" is used here, it does not mean that the statement is an "exception" to the hearsay rule. Rather, a party admission is classified as "nonhearsay" by the Federal Rules of Evidence.^[1]

The statement is admissible even if the declarant had no basis for knowing the truth of the statement. For example, if an employee rushes to tell the manager of a trucking company that one of his trucks has been in an accident, and the manager says, "oh, we're behaving so negligently, lately," that statement will be admissible - even though the manager had no reason to know that this particular accident was the result of negligence.

The exemption permits one party to offer the out-of-court statement of any opponent party. It may not be used by a party to offer that party's own out-of-court statement. However, under the common-law doctrine of completeness, a party may possibly be able to admit some statements of their own, if a party admission exemption allows the opponent to admit part of a statement, and the first party wishes to admit the rest of that statement.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission

 

 

You can't try to sneak in your statements by putting up witnesses and asking them what they told you.

 

Now there are a few exceptions. Completeness, mentioned above, allows you to get in statements when the other party has admitted part of the statement. So they can't just ask a witness to talk about something Zimmerman did and then avoid follow-up statements Zimmerman might have made at that same time.

 

Also there are hearsay exceptions like present sense impression and so forth, where you might be able to get statements in under a few limited scenarios. You can also get in hearsay statements if they aren't offered for the truth of the matter asserted, such as if the purpose of the statement is the effect on its listener. For example: you didn't take Zimmerman to the hospital that night, did you? Answer: No. Question: Why? Answer: He said he didn't need to go. Now whether Zimmmerman actually should have gone to the hospital or not is beside the point--the point of the statement is to explain why nobody took him to the hospital.

 

So the defense can probably get in bits and pieces of testimony regarding Zimmerman's statements throughout the whole trial, as they already have (i.e., the guy who testified that Zimmerman said he had to shoot Martin in self defense). But if they want to get in the whole story from Zimmerman, he's probably gonna have to testify. And as The Moz said, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the defense to have him testify at this point.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Yes, generally. If Zimmerman is questioning them then it is hearsay:

 

Who said anything about GZ questioning anyone?

 

I was talking about cops testifying about their interviews with GZ. You have shown nothing to support your theory that is hearsay.

[The Moz 69]

I am no lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday INN express either but even I know you NEVER put the defendant on the stand unless you are behind in a case as a last ditch effort. To put GZ on right now is akin to a Football team who is up by 14 points with 5 minutes to go putting in all 3rd stringers to finish , throwing 3 straight hail Mary's , or having their RB run wide holding the ball in only 1 hand. All GZ needs to do is take a few kneel downs and he wins the game / acquitted.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

In a case that is going 100% Zimmerman's way and that's just based on the Prosecutions witnesses - why would any attorney allow his client to go up on the stand? The DA has nothing and is grasping at straws right now why give him a ray of hope of GZ testifying for him to cross. You don't fock up a case when it turns into a slam dunk to get your client off -- as for more testimony based on the witnesses hell it should be dismissed. I really wondering how the hell he was ever arrested 2when the Cops were 100% behind the self defense claim and knew thats what it was. Was it really the report from Ms. Jabba the hut that really got him arrested? Damn how the hell is that at all trustworthy. The longer this case goes the more pissed I am that it even went to trial as it's a blatant attempt to appease the Sharpton / Jesse crowd.

You saw the Trayvon pictures as an 8 year old. That is why it went to trial. At least for Murder 2, which was a stretch. Without the media showing old photos and NBC doctoring 911 calls, this is a case of assault or manslaughter. A case they might win, I might add. The libby media has been Zimmerman's best ally, but they are too dumb to know it.

[DankNuggs 305]

In a case that is going 100% Zimmerman's way and that's just based on the Prosecutions witnesses - why would any attorney allow his client to go up on the stand? The DA has nothing and is grasping at straws right now why give him a ray of hope of GZ testifying for him to cross. You don't fock up a case when it turns into a slam dunk to get your client off -- as for more testimony based on the witnesses hell it should be dismissed. I really wondering how the hell he was ever arrested 2when the Cops were 100% behind the self defense claim and knew thats what it was. Was it really the report from Ms. Jabba the hut that really got him arrested? Damn how the hell is that at all trustworthy. The longer this case goes the more pissed I am that it even went to trial as it's a blatant attempt to appease the Sharpton / Jesse crowd.

This, OMara can obv tell if the prosection didn't make its case... Its interesting that this case has almost flipped and seems like its GZ proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was self defense as opposed to the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt its murder...

[The Moz 69]

This, OMara can obv tell if the prosection didn't make its case... Its interesting that this case has almost flipped and seems like its GZ proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was self defense as opposed to the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt its murder...

At this point unless there is something else - I have no clue how you could rule anything other than self defense - as everything matches up to what GZ has been saying all along. If GZ is convicted of anything it is just an attempt at appeasement.

[cbfalcon 824]

At this point unless there is something else - I have no clue how you could rule anything other than self defense - as everything matches up to what GZ has been saying all along. If GZ is convicted of anything it is just an attempt at appeasement.

 

So you think Zimmerman is innocent, Moz? You don't think the prosecution has much of a case?

 

Just trying to get your opinion on the record somewhere.

[The Moz 69]

 

So you think Zimmerman is innocent, Moz? You don't think the prosecution has much of a case?

 

Just trying to get your opinion on the record somewhere.

I don't know if he is "really" innocent as I wasn't there. I do know according to all the evidence , eyewitnesses , and recordings - there is no way to not acquit as the DA hasn't done anything to even allude to likely manslaughter all he has done it make it seem more like self defense. I don't know about the true guilt or innocence but if you want my opinion here is - GZ is Innocent "according to the law"

[RLLD 3,455]

We know that Zimmerman was stalking him, and we know that the kid turned on him and confronted him, but after that it gets hazy.

 

I do think that the kid was likely kicking Zimmermans arse, but what brought it to that, did Zimmerman attack him first?

 

Regardless, if some man of this kids size starts pounding on you, you then do what ever it takes to get him off. If you have a gun you shoot it, if not then you bite scratch, kick or whatever.

 

I cannot say what was in ZImmerman's mind that night, but I support his right to walk where he wants and if he wanted to follow this kid then so be it, if the kid wanted a fist fight and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, bang.....its really simple.

 

People need to spend a lot less time being confrontational, they will live longer.

[DankNuggs 305]

I don't know if he is "really" innocent as I wasn't there. I do know according to all the evidence , eyewitnesses , and recordings - there is no way to not acquit as the DA hasn't done anything to even allude to likely manslaughter all he has done it make it seem more like self defense. I don't know about the true guilt or innocence but if you want my opinion here is - GZ is Innocent "according to the law"

 

But we dont have any proof that Martin hit Zimmerman first?

 

All we have proof of is Zimmerman followed Martin, because he was a "focking punk". Some sort or altercation happened, with several different version of relevant details. Guy with gun shot guy with no gun.

 

And to answer your first question, like Worms alluded to... Yes, I think Zimmerman can't claim self defense, because he put himself in the situation to begin with. I don't even care if Martin hit him first. Carrying a loaded gun comes with a certain amount of inherited responsibility IMO.

The problem is that you are comparing the sitaution against your liberalized interpretation of the law. The actual law is that self defense allows to to respond with the amount of force being acted on you. So he has to prove he felt his life was in danger. You can say gun vs no gun, but if he was getting his head smashed in he could reasonably assume if he was knocked out his life would be in extreme danger. That justifies self defense IMO.

[pussycat 0]

There's always going to be the argument that Zimmerman's life was not in doubt UNLESS Trayvon's fingerprints were found on the gun. THAT would be a slam dunk. Otherwise it's always going to be was his or was his life not in doubt. Just my thoughts.

[DankNuggs 305]

 

People need to spend a lot less time being confrontational, they will live longer.

This is the lesson to be learned here...Getting into a violent confrontation can get out of hand very quickly.

[DankNuggs 305]

There's always going to be the argument that Zimmerman's life was not in doubt UNLESS Trayvon's fingerprints were found on the gun. THAT would be a slam dunk. Otherwise it's always going to be was his or was his life not in doubt. Just my thoughts.

I don't think this even matters. Tho its interesting that getting your head smashed into concrete and getting knocked out while having a gun on you puts you at even more risk of being killed than being unarmed. In a way he helped foster why his life was even in more peril from being knocked out.

[The Moz 69]

 

The problem is that you are comparing the sitaution against your liberalized interpretation of the law. The actual law is that self defense allows to to respond with the amount of force being acted on you. So he has to prove he felt his life was in danger. You can say gun vs no gun, but if he was getting his head smashed in he could reasonably assume if he was knocked out his life would be in extreme danger. That justifies self defense IMO.

Here is where it is getting missed.

 

The DA NEEDS TO PROVE !!! GZ's life was NOT in danger and do so beyond a reasonable doubt to NOT have it ruled self defense. this is what the law states here. If anyone thinks this can happen at this point ..........

 

Not saying a Jury won't but no reasonable person would.

[phillybear 365]

It was a mercy killing, saving the kid from a lifetime of diabetes.

In Florida it's well known that you don't bring a bag of Skittles to a Goddam Gator Fight.

I hope they do the right thing and prosecute that kid for negligent trespassing and throw the book at him. I'd go up to the coffin during the viewing and put another couple of bullets in his skull to make sure he wasn't a zombie. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM.

That's not even close to being legal. You have to charge that person with a crime. With what evidence? No prosecutor with a brain in their head would bring up charges. Unlike that moron that took the Duke kids all the way, then lost his job. So, within 24 hours, the guy walks. In fact, all concrete evidence at this point shows that Trafaggut was in the act of committing several crimes. Fock that dead kid, fock him in the ass.

 

Then again, Obama can call the hero with a gun a terrorist, and thrown him in jail for the rest of his life, without a trial. It's awesome how the assh0les in charge don't have to give a sh!t about the Constitution anymore.

 

From the very beginning of the original thread on this topic, I was all over it. Hell, I was the first responder. This is about as good of a time as any to take my victory lap. I am awesome.

 

The win.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Here is where it is getting missed.

 

The DA NEEDS TO PROVE !!! GZ's life was NOT in danger and do so beyond a reasonable doubt to NOT have it ruled self defense. this is what the law states here. If anyone thinks this can happen at this point ..........

 

Not saying a Jury won't but no reasonable person would.

This.

 

GZ does not need to prove anything. It is all on the DA, who has failed miserably so far.

 

Looks like Worms jumped the gun when he convicted GZ of murder and sent him to prison for life based on doctored photos and edited 911 tapes.

[wiffleball 4,654]

In a fast read, I'm not seeing this. Apologies if someone else said it already:

 

 

The defense does NOT have to prove that GZ's life was in danger. Any more than the dozens of police shootings where the only justification was/is "I believed my life to be in danger." All that is necessary is to prove it is reasonable to believe that GZ could felt that his life was in danger.

 

And, if some guy is pummeling your head whilst on top of you and saying threatening things - whether you have a holstered weapon or not - doesn't change the fact that GZ could easiily have felt his life was in danger. When your head is being bashed against concrete, death by aneurysm is a reasonable possibility.