George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?

Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.

And?

 

[Liability]

Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?

Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.

Maybe it was moved. But we ARE in law and justice.

Dershowitz could have been wrong yesterday. :: He might be right today.

So the question is NOT whether he has ever been wrong.

The question is whether he's right, now.

And, he might very well be right in this case.

 

[Sarah G]

To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood. He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either. If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.

When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.

You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up. So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose? Sure. But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was? Nope.

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video. I can see him not having blood on the back of his head if they stupidly cleaned him up but a punch in the nose would create blood on his clothes.

He could have gotten that bloody head by being pushed backwards but that would mean that Travon intended to push him down and run.

That would have been my strategy. I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At this stage in the process I'm not trying to prove Zimmerman is wrong, I'm not trying to prove Martin was wrong.

I'm examining the facts that have been made public in terms of multiple scenarios that the facts support. Right now we are missing information during those critical sentence that (a) support Zimmerman's version of the events, or (b) conflict with Zimmerman's version of the events.

If I were on the jury and had to vote right now, I'd say "not guilty" as the evidence does not support a Murder 2 charge (IMHO and subject to change based on new information).

What you are, however, trying to do is inject an erroneous and sepcious interpretation of Florida law. Even when more than one person has pointed out the flaw in your "reasoning" you persist in arguing that, under Florida law, Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight. That is so stupid that it is hard to believe that anyone other than rdean would even try it, yet you are going so. You can pretend to clear it up by saying you aren't trying to say he is guilty, but that is not the issue I have with your posts, so I can ignore it, and point out how stupid your position is.

Actually under the second part you highly lighted it does matter if Zimmerman was the aggressor. If he was the aggressor AND he was presented with an opportunity to escape the situation that a reasonable person would have used to escape the situation and CHOOSE NOT TO, then the self defense claim is no longer available.

Secondly you appeared to ignore the the first section which also notes that self defense is not available if the individual is involved with committing a forcible felony. If the state were to show (as a possible scenerio for those missing critical seconds) that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (was the aggressor) and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin (felony) then the combination of assault and unlawful detention would be a forcible felony under Florida law.

But to go back to the beginning of this conversation you said (and I paraphrase) that self defense always applies so that when someone is hitting your head on the ground the claim of "self defense" can be used. As you've shown by citing the Florida law, there are cases under that law where the aggressor cannot use the self defense claim and be immune from prosecution.

>>>>

No, it doesn't? Did you actually read it before you started to blather? If he, as he claimed, was lying on the ground getting his head bashed in, he had no opportunity to escape.

Self defense always applies, even under Florida law. The statutory exceptions to that apply only if the person trying to claim self defense is in the midst of committing a felony, or is trying to escape from being captured. In other words, it means that a guy who breaks into your house and kills you cannot argue self defense because you pulled a gun on him. That is suck basic common sense that only an idiot would need it explained to him, and only an asshole would try to use it to defend his absurd argument that Zimmerman cannot claim self defense if he was the aggressor.

Again, I thank you for making my point.

 

[tinydancer]

Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?

Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.

Maybe it was moved. But we ARE in law and justice.

Dershowitz could have been wrong yesterday. :: He might be right today.

So the question is NOT whether he has ever been wrong.

The question is whether he's right, now.

And, he might very well be right in this case.

That's what my fascination for the case is. Hey I'm just a person who loves crime. I'm watching this one and going this is nuts. I think Alan is bang on the money on this though.

I've watched Alan for years. He's dogged this one. Most interesting.

Really more involved in the Tori Stafford case up here and trying to get laws changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.

You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

 

[Liability]

To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood. He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either. If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.

When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.

You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up. So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose? Sure. But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was? Nope.

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

First off: maybe. Secondly, let's go with "probably." Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?

I can see him not having blood on the back of his head if they stupidly cleaned him up but a punch in the nose would create blood on his clothes.

see 1, 2 and 3, above.

He could have gotten that bloody head by being pushed backwards but that would mean that Trayvon intended to push him down and run.

No. It does not "mean" any such thing. It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.

That would have been my strategy.

Perhaps. But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy. Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?

I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

No. You don't know where it entered the victim's body. And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence. It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.

 

[tinydancer]

To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood. He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either. If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.

When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.

The EMT's had already taken care of him.

You know what this is? Crazy talk over and over and over sarah.



Okey dokey. Sarah you ever been hit? First time my ex husband put his fist right at my head I didn't bleed. **** man. It hurt.

Shall we continue?

 

[tinydancer]

You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up. So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose? Sure. But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was? Nope.

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

First off: maybe. Secondly, let's go with "probably." Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



No. It does not "mean" any such thing. It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.

That would have been my strategy.

Perhaps. But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy. Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?

I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

No. You don't know where it entered the victim's body. And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence. It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.

Honestly, what do you think Liability? Right from the hip.

 

[California Girl]

Funny, that part in bold is the only part Republicans can't see. What they don't believe in, turns invisible and is suddenly not there and never was. So convenient.

Was Zimmerman acting in his neighborhood watch capacity at the time? No. <<SNIP>>

GG, you may be confused so let me speak in general as a member of Neighborhood Watch.

Most neighborhoods don't have "patrols", "don't have shifts", don't have a timeclock where we "punch in/punch out". Neighborhood Watch is typically a group of citizens that commit to - well - watching the neighborhood and reporting activity to the police if and when needed.

There is no "on clock/off clock". If you look to the sentence before the bolded part of the paragraph you will note that we "You will extend their ability to provide security by reporting anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can follow up on your calls."


>>>>

OK. Thanks.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The girlfriend's "testimony?"

What "testimony" was that?

There has been no trial yet.

I don't recall a girlfriend testifying at the one bail hearing, either.

Indeed, and the statements the gf has made were to Benjamin Crump, the Martin family's attorney, in the presence of an ABC reporter. These statements contained very little substance.

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.

That seems a strange response to some one watching him. Why was Martin afraid of being recognized or identified? Why did this seem such a natural response to his gf? What did she know about Martin's activities that made hiding his identity seem so natural to her?

I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.

This suggests Martin had not yet made up his mind about fight or flight.

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

Who thought Martin had managed to escape, Martin or the gf? It's not credible that this 17 year old 160 lb. football player couldn't have outrun overweight Zimmerman, suggesting that Martin was not running away from Zimmerman, and since the confrontation took place in an open area, the idea that Martin had been "cornered" is an obvious "invention" of the gf. That raises the question, what else in her account of the conversation might have been invented?

Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Of course, she could have no idea if "the headset just fell" because some one pushed Martin or because Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The gf's parents have hired an attorney to protect their daughter's rights. Just what rights are those? Her fifth amendment rights against self incrimination? Just what did she know about the allegedly stolen jewelry and the burglary tool found in Martin's backpack? Did she have knowledge that these items were related to Martin's past or present activities in the gated community? Is this why they were both so afraid of him being recognized?

 

[Sarah G]

You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up. So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose? Sure. But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was? Nope.

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

First off: maybe. Secondly, let's go with "probably." Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



No. It does not "mean" any such thing. It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.

That would have been my strategy.

Perhaps. But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy. Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?

I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

No. You don't know where it entered the victim's body. And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence. It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.

Travon said to his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run but he would walk fast. Then Zimmerman confronted him. It wasn't the other way round. Zimmerman was the aggressor from the start.

He didn't look at all like a guy who had been hit in the face, there wasn't any swelling, nothing. He wasn't hurt and that blood on the back of his head was minimal. So you're saying he might have been allowed to change his shirt?

He may have got pushed but he wasn't hit.

Plus he was already concocting his self defense story, why would he want to change his shirt?

 

[toomuchtime_]

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

First off: maybe. Secondly, let's go with "probably." Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



No. It does not "mean" any such thing. It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.



Perhaps. But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy. Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?

I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

No. You don't know where it entered the victim's body. And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence. It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.

Travon said to his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run but he would walk fast. Then Zimmerman confronted him. It wasn't the other way round. Zimmerman was the aggressor from the start.

He didn't look at all like a guy who had been hit in the face, there wasn't any swelling, nothing. He wasn't hurt and that blood on the back of his head was minimal. So you're saying he might have been allowed to change his shirt?

He may have got pushed but he wasn't hit.

Plus he was already concocting his self defense story, why would he want to change his shirt?

The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and his lawyer later claimed that Zimmeran suffered a broken nose. After receiving medical attention at the scene of the shooting, it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning. He did not check into the emergency room following the police questioning.

Trayvon Martin Case: Doctor Sees Little Evidence George Zimmerman Had Broken Nose - ABC News

So according to the initial police report Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with his account of being attacked by Martin. Although the doctor in the above link claims he sees little evidence of a broken nose, according to the Mayo Clinic,

Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop.

Broken nose: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com

 

[oracle]

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.

You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

Actually, it's you who doesn't understand. The legal statute for hearsay, is if the girlfriend's buddy had been the one to tell about what the girlfriend said she heard him say. In other words, if Trayvon's words were relayed by a third party.

 

[Liability]

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

First off: maybe. Secondly, let's go with "probably." Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



No. It does not "mean" any such thing. It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.



Perhaps. But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy. Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?

I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon. That would underscore Travon's intent.

No. You don't know where it entered the victim's body. And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence. It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.

Honestly, what do you think Liability? Right from the hip.

I am content with knowing that I don't know, that I don't have enough information (reliable information) yet to MAKE a determination and that eventually we are likely to get the information needed to make a rational "call" on this one.

Given the limited information we do have so far, together with the legal presumption of innocence, I am also content that anyone who declares Zimmerman "guilty" at this juncture has a screw loose.

Is it possible that Zimmerman is guilty? Yes. Given what we know so far, is it at least as likely that he's not guilty? Yes.

 

[oracle]

We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).

Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.

And screw your hag, Angela Corey who is doing your evil racist bidding.

Was that a police photo? Where's the time stamp? Why wasn't it released in the beginning? Ever heard of photoshop? Why did the lead officer want to arrest him INSTEAD of take him in for stitches? Run that goofy shit and staged photo on someone else. When they were initially trying to use this "head wound" look at the areas they circled then. the spots don't match up to these current spots. And again...Time stamp please.

The time stamp was incorporated into the digital information in the image taken on a cell phone ~ 3 minutes AFTER the gun was fired -- according to a report I saw from ABC News. (Time of gunshot established independently from the 9-1-1 call and tape.)

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News

Look to the 2:20 mark on that video report to about 2:28 or so. Date taken: 2/26/2012 707 PM.

Apparently, so was the blood. So....you're just pulling something from your ass? You post the abc video so we can see the time stamp, OR should we just take your word for it?

 

[Liability]

You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

Actually, it's you who doesn't understand. The legal statute for hearsay, is if the girlfriend's buddy had been the one to tell about what the girlfriend said she heard him say. In other words, if Trayvon's words were relayed by a third party.

oracle you are wrong.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered (in a court proceeding) for the proof of the matter asserted. There are some scenarios where what seems like hearsay is legally NOT hearsay at all. There are other scenarios where something IS hearsay but is allowed to be received into evidence just the same based on a legally recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay. It is also true that sometimes one's own words (uttered out of court) are hearsay and can't be used in court.

In this case, we are not really talking about any "hearsay" at this juncture.

 

[Liability]

Was that a police photo? Where's the time stamp? Why wasn't it released in the beginning? Ever heard of photoshop? Why did the lead officer want to arrest him INSTEAD of take him in for stitches? Run that goofy shit and staged photo on someone else. When they were initially trying to use this "head wound" look at the areas they circled then. the spots don't match up to these current spots. And again...Time stamp please.

The time stamp was incorporated into the digital information in the image taken on a cell phone ~ 3 minutes AFTER the gun was fired -- according to a report I saw from ABC News. (Time of gunshot established independently from the 9-1-1 call and tape.)

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News

Look to the 2:20 mark on that video report to about 2:28 or so. Date taken: 2/26/2012 707 PM.

Apparently, so was the blood. So....you're just pulling something from your ass? You post the abc video so we can see the time stamp, OR should we just take your word for it?

I did post the link you mental pygmy. It's right there (underlined) in the post of mine you ******* quoted, you imbecile.

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News

 

[oracle]

The time stamp was incorporated into the digital information in the image taken on a cell phone ~ 3 minutes AFTER the gun was fired -- according to a report I saw from ABC News. (Time of gunshot established independently from the 9-1-1 call and tape.)

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News

Look to the 2:20 mark on that video report to about 2:28 or so. Date taken: 2/26/2012 707 PM.

WRONG! The Fla. police have already said there were no visual witnesses...So who took the pic?

WTF are you babbling about?

No visual witnesses to WHAT, first of all.

Three MINUTES after the shooting, ANYBODY could snap a photo of the back of Zimmerman's head. ABC news honored his/her request to remain anonymous.

Even a pinhead like YOU should be able to fathom that SOMEBODY was enough of a "visual witness" to snap the cell phone picture, you moron.

The term, by the way, is "eyewitness." One need not observe a crime to be an eyewitness. For example, if one is a block away and saw a person running by on foot wearing a particular item of clothing moments later, one is an eyewitness to THAT which he or she OBSERVED.

Back to the photo. WTF are you trying to grunt out? The photo exists. The time/date stamp is embedded. ABC got it from SOMEONE. It shows what it shows.

That a pinhead like you doesn't like those facts is quite clearly of no significance to any matter under discussion.

Hey Dickhead! The Fla. police called them "visual witnesses" and you obviously sit on your brain, because your example of eyewitness still said what someone "SAW" YOU FLAMING JACKASS! B.T.W. Who do you suppose got that close right after the "beating" and shooting to snap a photo? What? Police don't have cameras or phones? Get a clue mongrel. The photo exists. It's laughable at best. As is your feeble argument.

 

[oracle]

To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood. He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either. If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.

When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.

You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up. So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose? Sure. But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was? Nope.

Actually, it's already been proven that there was no damage to his nose...by several experts. AND did you see his mug shot? Or him at the arraignment? How about the front of his shirt at the station? did they take him to the laundry on the way?