George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question.

Correct.

However you are allowed to strike someone if they assault you.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities.

You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.

Actually you are if they attacked you and are proceeding with hostilities even through they are calling out. Under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law an individual is allowed to respond with force when threatened or assaulted.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities and there are conflicting witness accounts about just who (or is whom) was calling for help.



>>>>

 

[Liability]

Try the experiment tackylib. Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete. Sure it might hurt and you might bleed, but as long as it's "minor" (as determined later on) I'm SURE you won't feel the slightest tiniest littlest eensy eensie bit of fear or panic or pain. And OF COURSE, you wouldn't CONSIDER the possibility that you might be on the verge of having your skull fractured.

Oh, and of course, that busted nose you suffered, that won't add any pain or discomfort to you -- nor will it cloud your analysis of how grave the risk to your life may be or degree of risk you might be facing of serious bodily harm. After all, YOU have pre-concluded that the busted nose isn't "seriously" busted.

/sarcasm

You are full of shit.

Assuming that Martin did bust Zimmerman's nose and did get on top of Zimmerman's prone body and bash Zimmerman's head onto the concrete walkway, then Zimmerman could CERTAINLY (in the moment, as measured by his subjective assessment at that very instant) have considered himself to be facing the imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.

Your AFTER THE FACT analysis of the degree of relative injury he actually suffered is no substitute.

Yep. You are simply full of shit.

 

[KissMy]

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question.

Correct.

However you are allowed to strike someone if they assault you.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities.

You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.

Actually you are if they attacked you and are proceeding with hostilities even through they are calling out. Under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law an individual is allowed to respond with force when threatened or assaulted.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities and there are conflicting witness accounts about just who (or is whom) was calling for help.



>>>>

A subdued person screaming for help is not proceeding with hostilities. Zimmerman only fired to save his life after screaming for help 20 times.

 

[taichiliberal]

If Zimmerman's head was such the bloody mess as his lawyers initially claimed, then the EMT's would have taken him to the hospital....Period.

Evidently, it wasn't.

Now you are a medical expert too?

Jesus! Please shut up and go play in a busy street somewhere.

I love how all these liberals think the paramedics can just ignore someone saying, "I don't want to go to the hospital" and throw them in the ambulance and take 'em against their will.

They're paramedics, not kidnappers.

Jim Bowie is a moron of whom I have on IA.

YOU, Cecilie, have already had your dopey ass handed to you by me on more than one occasion....that's why you keep joining these maudlin slams by others EVEN THOUGH you swore that I was not worth responding to or commenting on.

And once again, NO ONE HAS STATED WHAT YOU ASSERT HERE....you're just doing what all willfully ignorant folk do....bullhorn your own opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact. To put it in terms that you'll comprehend, Cecilie, you're a ******* liar....and a piss poor one at that unless you can provide QUOTES where I or anyone else has asserted EXACTLY what you state here. We'll wait.

 

[taichiliberal]

The bottom line, after all these months is that George Zimmerman is not black. He should have permitted the black boy to beat him to death to prove he wasn't a racist.

Bottom line: after all these months, Zimmerman STILL cannot explain why he pursued Martin AFTER he acknowledged that it wasn't necessary.....EXPECIALLY when he STATED that Martin was "running away".

When I was a kid, if someone picked a fight and then bitched when his target fought back, he was labled a wussy. But in Zimmerman's case, you shoot the guy and tell everyone you were the innocent victim, because DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES!

Carry on, my Zimmerman Zombie.

 

[MuadDib]

Now you are a medical expert too?

Jesus! Please shut up and go play in a busy street somewhere.

I love how all these liberals think the paramedics can just ignore someone saying, "I don't want to go to the hospital" and throw them in the ambulance and take 'em against their will.

They're paramedics, not kidnappers.

Jim Bowie is a moron of whom I have on IA.

YOU, Cecilie, have already had your dopey ass handed to you by me on more than one occasion....that's why you keep joining these maudlin slams by others EVEN THOUGH you swore that I was not worth responding to or commenting on.

And once again, NO ONE HAS STATED WHAT YOU ASSERT HERE....you're just doing what all willfully ignorant folk do....bullhorn your own opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact. To put it in terms that you'll comprehend, Cecilie, you're a ******* liar....and a piss poor one at that unless you can provide QUOTES where I or anyone else has asserted EXACTLY what you state here. We'll wait.

I don't know the history between you two, but as a former firefighter/paramedic and EMT instructor myself, who worked firetrucks, ambulances, and helicopter medivac, search and rescue and cave and high angle rescue, I may be somewhat qualified to say that Cecilie is correct. If the patient refuses treatment or transport, you can't treat or transport unless the patient goes unconscious. Then applied consent kicks in.

 

[earlycuyler]

I did read it. It is quite the unimpressive and irrelevant post.

The fact that there is even one scrape on Martin's hand undercuts the whimpering that took place when the funeral shop guy with the big bow tie declared that Martin's hands showed no injury at all.

The minor APPEARANCE of the wounds on Zimmerman's face does not tell the story. The broken nose, however, does.

The appearance of the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head also doesn't serve to undercut HIS claim that Martin had been knocking his skull onto the concrete.

The physical evidence, in short, tends to serve to corroborate Zimmerman and does little to help the prosecutor's case against Zimmerman. Indeed, objectively, the physical evidence undercuts the prosecutor's case.

Your convoluted logic would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

First you save evidence is irrelevent, then you present your supposition and conjecture as to why anything that doesn't corroborate Zimmerman's story is irrelevent because EVIDENCE that does support his story is the ONLY evidence that should be considered viable.

So the Zimmerman Zombie's new spin is that evidence of a struggle PROVES Zimmerman correct....FORGET any evidence to indicate just HOW that struggle came to be, and to whom was the initial instigator.

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

My logic is not the convoluted logic, dumb ass.

I have NEVER said that evidence is irrelevant.

I did suggest that the thread you praised is not worth much.

Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account. IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.

There is also no evidence of "stalking." It's a nice buzz word, but not a valid word choice in this discussion.

Your argument (like you) is still just an empty bit of fluff. Call yourself and your contentions a "fail" and move on.

Your rancid, biased, mindless conjecture is worthless.

He was not stalking the kid. And I dont think a confrontation was on his mind at all. He was not a beered up red neck out looking for a colored folk to airhole either, BUT, his actions put him in the spot that he had to shoot himself out of. Its even in the evidence that the shooting was avoidable by Zimmerman had he just waited for the police. That is why Zimmerman was charged. There is no law that protects what he did. First rule of concealed carry, be where the trouble is not.

 

[taichiliberal]

And beyond your supposition and conjecture, where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim?

Zimmermann said he lost track of him. Was he lying?


Zimmerman said Martin was "running away" after he spotted Zimmerman's car tailing him. Zimmerman had ALREADY given a location to the cops, was told the cops were on their way and that it was NOT necessary to continue following Martin, to which he replied, "Okay". So your little paraphrase is irrelevent to the facts, Toddles.

If Trayvon had continued toward home, he'd still be alive today.

Again, Martin WAS GOING HOME until some creep in a car started stalking him...he ran to try and elude Zimmerman, as his girlfriend stated to the cops when she was talking to him on the cell phone. HAD ZIMMERMAN NOT GOTTEN OUT OF HIS CAR AND CONTINUED TO FOLLOW MARTIN, HE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE....a conclusion drawn by the local police.

A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person

Repeatedly? Does once qualify?
Thanks for disproving your claim.

Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him AFTER BEING TOLD THE COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY AND IT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY. And as Martin's girlfriend states, Martin had thought he lost Zimmerman at one point.

Got that now, Toddles? Or are you going to now repeat the supposition and conjecture necessary to paing Zimmerman as a victim and NOT an instigator?

Again, Martin WAS GOING HOME until some creep in a car started stalking him...he ran to try and elude Zimmerman

He eluded, you heard the 911 call.
But then he realized he'd been dissed.....and came back.

Pure supposition and conjecture on your part, Toddles, as the phone records and testimony on ALL parts DO NOT support your theory.

Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him

Yeah, following a guy twice in 5 minutes isn't going to get you a stalking conviction, despite your whining.

You're projecting again, Toddles....YOU wanted a definition, and I gave it to you with HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE APROPO TO THE ZOMMERMAN/MARTIN CASE. TFB if you don't like it.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD (although there is NO evidence to support his description).....so Zimmerman, who is ARMED, starts following the guy. When he's spotted by Martin, who then runs away, Zimmerman pursues him. According to the girlfriend, Martin had thought he lost the creep who was following him at least once.

Anyway you slice it, Zimmerman was the instigator, and had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

But like I said, this may not even get to trial if the judge goes for the "Stand Your Ground" defense....which is interesting because no one seems to think that Martin had the right to stand his ground against a creepy stranger that night.

And the band plays on.

 

[taichiliberal]

I did read it. It is quite the unimpressive and irrelevant post.

The fact that there is even one scrape on Martin's hand undercuts the whimpering that took place when the funeral shop guy with the big bow tie declared that Martin's hands showed no injury at all.

The minor APPEARANCE of the wounds on Zimmerman's face does not tell the story. The broken nose, however, does.

The appearance of the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head also doesn't serve to undercut HIS claim that Martin had been knocking his skull onto the concrete.

The physical evidence, in short, tends to serve to corroborate Zimmerman and does little to help the prosecutor's case against Zimmerman. Indeed, objectively, the physical evidence undercuts the prosecutor's case.

Your convoluted logic would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

First you save evidence is irrelevent, then you present your supposition and conjecture as to why anything that doesn't corroborate Zimmerman's story is irrelevent because EVIDENCE that does support his story is the ONLY evidence that should be considered viable.

So the Zimmerman Zombie's new spin is that evidence of a struggle PROVES Zimmerman correct....FORGET any evidence to indicate just HOW that struggle came to be, and to whom was the initial instigator.

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

My logic is not the convoluted logic, dumb ass.

Because YOU say so?

I have NEVER said that evidence is irrelevant.

You said that the evidence I pointed to is irrelevent, yet your myopic viewpoint of evidence an subsequent spin, supposition and conjecture is valid? Pardon me while I laugh at your repeated foolishness!

I did suggest that the thread you praised is not worth much.

See above response.

Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account. IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.

Repeating your drivel won't magically make it valid, as I've already addressed this in the previous post (s).

There is also no evidence of "stalking." It's a nice buzz word, but not a valid word choice in this discussion.

Read the definition....especially the part I highlighted, and then get back to me and tell me EXACTLY how that applies, because the definition does NOT set a specific time period. Zimmerman described Martin as a drugged up thug up to no good...and he followed him. He CONTINUED searching for Martin after Martin ran away, despite acknowledging that the cops had the location, were on their way and he need not continue to follow him. Hunting a guy at night with a gun....sounds like stalking to me.

Your argument (like you) is still just an empty bit of fluff. Call yourself and your contentions a "fail" and move on.

Wow, another Zimmerman Zombie bullhorns his opinion and the world stops. Get over yourself, butch.....that you can't offer nothing but parroted talking points and guesswork is plain to see in the chronology of the posts. That I can call you on it just burns your ass to no end....but hey, no one said life was easy.

Your rancid, biased, mindless conjecture is worthless.

See above responses. Unless you've got something other than schoolyard taunts, bunky....I'm done humiliating you.

 

[MuadDib]

I'll post these once again for your reading enjoyment.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters

Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him AFTER BEING TOLD THE COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY AND IT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY. And as Martin's girlfriend states, Martin had thought he lost Zimmerman at one point.

Got that now, Toddles? Or are you going to now repeat the supposition and conjecture necessary to paing Zimmerman as a victim and NOT an instigator?

Again, Martin WAS GOING HOME until some creep in a car started stalking him...he ran to try and elude Zimmerman

He eluded, you heard the 911 call.
But then he realized he'd been dissed.....and came back.

Pure supposition and conjecture on your part, Toddles, as the phone records and testimony on ALL parts DO NOT support your theory.

Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him

Yeah, following a guy twice in 5 minutes isn't going to get you a stalking conviction, despite your whining.

You're projecting again, Toddles....YOU wanted a definition, and I gave it to you with HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE APROPO TO THE ZOMMERMAN/MARTIN CASE. TFB if you don't like it.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD (although there is NO evidence to support his description).....so Zimmerman, who is ARMED, starts following the guy. When he's spotted by Martin, who then runs away, Zimmerman pursues him. According to the girlfriend, Martin had thought he lost the creep who was following him at least once.

Anyway you slice it, Zimmerman was the instigator, and had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

But like I said, this may not even get to trial if the judge goes for the "Stand Your Ground" defense....which is interesting because no one seems to think that Martin had the right to stand his ground against a creepy stranger that night.

And the band plays on.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD

Pretty good call, considering his school suspension.......and autopsy blood test.

had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive. Deal with it.

Yup. And if Trayvon had continued running home after he evaded Zimmermann's paunchy ass, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he returned and began beating on Martin's paunchy ass.
Now Trayvon's punk ass is dead. Deal with it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question. You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.

Just as you're not allowed to shoot and kill someone who asks "why are you following me"...nor are you allowed to stalk and confront someone with your gun at night who is IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL simply because they fit your preconceived idea of a criminal in the act. That's what the police are for, of whom were notified, given directions and were on their way.

Oh wait! I forgot....this is Florida, and Stand Your Ground does allow the latter! How silly of me!

Of course, no one asks if Martin had the right to stand his ground....but then again, dead men tell no tales.

 

[taichiliberal]

Try the experiment tackylib. Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete. Sure it might hurt and you might bleed, but as long as it's "minor" (as determined later on) I'm SURE you won't feel the slightest tiniest littlest eensy eensie bit of fear or panic or pain. And OF COURSE, you wouldn't CONSIDER the possibility that you might be on the verge of having your skull fractured.

Oh, and of course, that busted nose you suffered, that won't add any pain or discomfort to you -- nor will it cloud your analysis of how grave the risk to your life may be or degree of risk you might be facing of serious bodily harm. After all, YOU have pre-concluded that the busted nose isn't "seriously" busted.

/sarcasm

You are full of shit.

Assuming that Martin did bust Zimmerman's nose and did get on top of Zimmerman's prone body and bash Zimmerman's head onto the concrete walkway, then Zimmerman could CERTAINLY (in the moment, as measured by his subjective assessment at that very instant) have considered himself to be facing the imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.

Your AFTER THE FACT analysis of the degree of relative injury he actually suffered is no substitute.

Yep. You are simply full of shit.

How many times do I have to school you Zimmerman Zombies? No one gives a damn about your silly assed hypothetical scenarios......the FACTS of this case....ALL the FACTS are what's being discussed. So spare us all this constant parroting of "could haves, might of, should be, blathering.

The cops initially determined in the latest released report that had Zimmerman kept his dopey ass in the car, none of this would have gotten out of hand. Zimmerman had already given location to the cops, was told they were on their way and he didn't have to keep following Martin. Zimmerman said, "okay".....but when asked his home address, Zimmerman starts babbling some BS about how he doesn't know where Martin is and doesn't want to give out his location! Then suddenly he's all confused as to where to meet the cops. Really? Mr. self appointed Neighborhood Watch guy doesn't know his own neighborhood? Hell, Martin did....he was WALKING HOME.

Keep lumbering along, my little Zimmerman Zombie....unless you've got something of worth other than schoolyard taunts, and bogus scenarios, I'll just sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.

 

[KissMy]

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?

You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question. You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.

Just as you're not allowed to shoot and kill someone who asks "why are you following me"...nor are you allowed to stalk and confront someone with your gun at night who is IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL simply because they fit your preconceived idea of a criminal in the act. That's what the police are for, of whom were notified, given directions and were on their way.

Oh wait! I forgot....this is Florida, and Stand Your Ground does allow the latter! How silly of me!

Of course, no one asks if Martin had the right to stand his ground....but then again, dead men tell no tales.

Are you saying Martin was standing his ground when he was on top of the subdued Zimmerman who was begging for his life no less than 20 times as Martin continued to beat him???

Why was Martin in this neighborhood in the first place. Why did Martin obtain a lighter from the 7-11 that night.

 

[taichiliberal]

I love how all these liberals think the paramedics can just ignore someone saying, "I don't want to go to the hospital" and throw them in the ambulance and take 'em against their will.

They're paramedics, not kidnappers.

Jim Bowie is a moron of whom I have on IA.

YOU, Cecilie, have already had your dopey ass handed to you by me on more than one occasion....that's why you keep joining these maudlin slams by others EVEN THOUGH you swore that I was not worth responding to or commenting on.

And once again, NO ONE HAS STATED WHAT YOU ASSERT HERE....you're just doing what all willfully ignorant folk do....bullhorn your own opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact. To put it in terms that you'll comprehend, Cecilie, you're a ******* liar....and a piss poor one at that unless you can provide QUOTES where I or anyone else has asserted EXACTLY what you state here. We'll wait.

I don't know the history between you two, but as a former firefighter/paramedic and EMT instructor myself, who worked firetrucks, ambulances, and helicopter medivac, search and rescue and cave and high angle rescue, I may be somewhat qualified to say that Cecilie is correct. If the patient refuses treatment or transport, you can't treat or transport unless the patient goes unconscious. Then applied consent kicks in.

If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not. That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.

Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate. And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).

Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.

 

[MuadDib]

Jim Bowie is a moron of whom I have on IA.

YOU, Cecilie, have already had your dopey ass handed to you by me on more than one occasion....that's why you keep joining these maudlin slams by others EVEN THOUGH you swore that I was not worth responding to or commenting on.

And once again, NO ONE HAS STATED WHAT YOU ASSERT HERE....you're just doing what all willfully ignorant folk do....bullhorn your own opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact. To put it in terms that you'll comprehend, Cecilie, you're a ******* liar....and a piss poor one at that unless you can provide QUOTES where I or anyone else has asserted EXACTLY what you state here. We'll wait.

I don't know the history between you two, but as a former firefighter/paramedic and EMT instructor myself, who worked firetrucks, ambulances, and helicopter medivac, search and rescue and cave and high angle rescue, I may be somewhat qualified to say that Cecilie is correct. If the patient refuses treatment or transport, you can't treat or transport unless the patient goes unconscious. Then applied consent kicks in.

If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not. That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.

Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate. And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).

Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.

No it's not the law in any state. You have the right to refuse treatment or the patient can charge you with assault and battery.

 

[taichiliberal]

You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question. You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.

Just as you're not allowed to shoot and kill someone who asks "why are you following me"...nor are you allowed to stalk and confront someone with your gun at night who is IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL simply because they fit your preconceived idea of a criminal in the act. That's what the police are for, of whom were notified, given directions and were on their way.

Oh wait! I forgot....this is Florida, and Stand Your Ground does allow the latter! How silly of me!

Of course, no one asks if Martin had the right to stand his ground....but then again, dead men tell no tales.

Are you saying Martin was standing his ground when he was on top of the subdued Zimmerman who was begging for his life no less than 20 times as Martin continued to beat him???

Is this testimony you keep referring to been vetted by police and opposing counsels? If not, then you'll have to chalk it up with those that contradict this little tale you hold so dear.
And I'm saying that A MAN WITH A GUN WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING YOU FIRST IN HIS CAR AND THEN ON FOOT IS THE INSTIGATOR IN THIS LITTLE TALE....MARTIN THE PERSON BEING STALKED. Why should Martin not have the right to confront a stranger who is stalking him IN HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD?

Why was Martin in this neighborhood in the first place. Why did Martin obtain a lighter from the 7-11 that night.

(1) Martin was with Dad, in a 5 block radius or less from Dad's girlfriends house, of whom which he visited. HIS I.D., which the local cops had, told that he was not from out of town or state.

(2) What are you insinuating regarding the lighter?

(3) DO YOUR ******* HOMEWORK AND GET UP TO SPEED AS TO THE DETAILS OF THIS CASE...IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR NEARLY A MONTH NOW. I won't do your homework for you again.

 

[taichiliberal]

I don't know the history between you two, but as a former firefighter/paramedic and EMT instructor myself, who worked firetrucks, ambulances, and helicopter medivac, search and rescue and cave and high angle rescue, I may be somewhat qualified to say that Cecilie is correct. If the patient refuses treatment or transport, you can't treat or transport unless the patient goes unconscious. Then applied consent kicks in.

If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not. That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.

Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate. And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).

Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.

No it's not the law in any state. You have the right to refuse treatment or the patient can charge you with assault and battery.

from Refusal of Medical Aid by Benjamin Katz MD
ems.aanet.org/info/RMA.ppt


Capacity
Presumptive determination of competence
If a patient refuses and evidence exists indicating an impairment of the patient’s capacities, it is appropriate to conclude the patient may be found incompetent in a court of law.
Impairment may be determined by;
Patients own actions
Information from caregivers and/or relatives


Determining comprehension“Sliding Scale” standard
The more serious the risk posed by the patient’s decision the more stringent the standard of comprehension (capacity) required.
Refusal of EMS transport to hospital typically considered “high risk”.


2007 EMT Basic Protocols

http://www.naems.org/vertical/sites...ds/{5C009415-C07D-4048-8431-FB2FA0C74229}.PDF

5. The patient has rights. You can only consider transporting the patient against his/her
will if you can determine that the patient is unable to make an informed decision, such
as a minor whose parent or guardian is not present or a person who cannot understand
why treatment is necessary or the risks of not accepting treatment. Such factors as
mental illness, serious injury or illness, drugs and alcohol are examples of factors
which could impair a person's ability to understand the nature and consequences of
accepting or rejecting medical help. Have the police at the scene assist you.

 

[KissMy]

If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not. That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.

Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate. And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).

Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.

How long or how many times must your head be pounded against the concrete by an irrational person who has not let up as you scream for your life 20 times before you pull your gun???

When is it you know that the irrational person who has failed to respond to reason will poke your eye out or slam your head hard enough to where you will not be able to use your gun???

Real life does not involve a Hollywood make-up artist who makes nothing look like a shocking injury. I gurantee those injuries hurt Zimmerman a whole lot more than you are willing to admit. They hurt him for worse than they hurt you by looking at them.

I double dare you to let someone pound your head on the concrete one time hard enough to leave one of those many marks on the back of Zimmermans head.

 

[taichiliberal]

I'll post these once again for your reading enjoyment.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters

Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back

What you need to do is read a transcript of the un-edited 911 tape, and then compare it to the Wagist version of the time table and what's being said.

the Wagist leaves out a few things that when re-instated does NOT support his theory.