• Trayvon Martin Case: New video shows no blood or bruises on Zimmerman
    105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Laferio;35339792]actually yeah, you don't bleed much around the back of your head/scalp. I can't exactly say personal experience, but seeing as you've got the experience of being dropped on your head I can see where you're coming from.[/QUOTE] yes you do, I got a cut around the back of my head, and bled like a motherfucker [QUOTE=yawmwen;35340011]Your brain is on the [I]inside[/I] of your skull. Outside of your skull is nothing but skin(like I said before). A cut on the top of your head won't bleed very much at all, and if it does it stops in a few seconds. It doesn't even leave a mark. It might have a little hairline scab but if you clean it up you can't even tell if you got cut up.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;35340036]Sorry, I don't think [I]you[/I] have an idea what you're talking about in this case. Your picture even proves my point. There isn't jack shit in the way of blood vessels on the top or back of your head. I've cut myself shaving my head, I've had my head slammed into shit. I've had my head cut with glass and knives before. Your face will swell up, bleed, and become unrecognizable. Your head will look like nothing ever fucking happened in less than an hour.[/QUOTE] if he was as beat up as he'd claim he'd have red marks on the back of his head you know
[QUOTE=Zet;35339253]Because the brain is located in the head, so if you start bleeding from the head, it's generally a good idea to see a Doctor to make sure that it is just a cut and nothing more serious.[/QUOTE] There are layers to protect the brains on top of and below of the skull bone. Those layers below are for chemical poisons and shit that comes from within but.. for outer blunt-force strucks.. Hell, you'd feel it if something were to penetrate all of that, where your brains would be in danger, and the doctor even checked Zimmerman's condition. For a mere skin scratch, even in the head, all you gotta do is to keep it clean/secure and it'll heal, even if the skull had a hair-fracture it would heal too. And Zimmerman himself did not check into a hospital because he didn't even give a shit, it's not like he struck a bullet to the head because then.. the doctor who checked him would have cared at least. So, how is this Zimmerman getting hit and "bleeding in the head" mean anything to anybody? As for the rest of the case, Martin chose the wrong route to home at the wrong time. That sucks major balls. Stupid how they can't seem to prove the case either way, the FBI or whoever believed that Zimmerman was intoxicated himself rather than the kid that he shot. Seriously all shit aside, Zimmerman should serve about two handfuls of years in prison for killing a fellow citizen under false beliefs about the black kid's intentions, "up to no good" huh? Zimmerman sure wasn't up to any good either.
[QUOTE=MR-X;35338288]Are you kidding? Police wanted to press charges on zimmerman but the DA will not let them. Police have been wanting to charge him.[/QUOTE] No they don't bro! The Police totally don't give a shit! :downs:
Though I don't know what kind of altercation they had which led the other one getting shot to death. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] automerg!
[QUOTE=Noble;35342775]This pretty much sums up the average person's understanding of the details of this case[/QUOTE] Don't pretend you know more than him, because you don't.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35340001]Due to a shooting, won't the EMT's treat Zimmerman on scene before sending him off with law enforcement? I think that they cleaned him up and he was not wounded enough to still be bleeding. At the same time, I don't see much bruising for what is being called a broken nose. I still have no real position on this case, there are parts where emotion take over reasoning making it difficult. Because I don't think this is racially motivated, at least only racially motivated. It could be that Zimmerman has been dying to be hailed as a hero or even possibly just get carried away with intimidating some poor kid. And with the video, I didn't expect blood everywhere since EMT's would treat him at the scene and clean him up, but also it doesn't appear that his nose is bruised or even damaged in any way to be considered broken.[/QUOTE] "The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning." It makes sense that he'd be cleaned up in that case. As for bruising from a broken nose I remember when I broke my nose it took a good day for it to start bruising up pretty bad. Bruising is kinda funky, for some people its immediate, some it takes time, others it doesn't happen at all. In my opinion while this video does open for speculation as to the nose breaking, it doesn't prove anything about him being bloodied. EMT's always clean you up, they have to to ensure there's no other injuries underneath the blood.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;35343890]There are layers to protect the brains on top of and below of the skull bone. Those layers below are for chemical poisons and shit that comes from within but.. for outer blunt-force strucks.. Hell, you'd feel it if something were to penetrate all of that, where your brains would be in danger, and the doctor even checked Zimmerman's condition. For a mere skin scratch, even in the head, all you gotta do is to keep it clean/secure and it'll heal, even if the skull had a hair-fracture it would heal too. And Zimmerman himself did not check into a hospital because he didn't even give a shit, it's not like he struck a bullet to the head because then.. the doctor who checked him would have cared at least.[/QUOTE] Lets look at the two things if Zimmerman truly was attacked in such a life threatening way. 1 - severe wound: Which would be visible, it's not. 2 - Minor wound: Would be somewhat visible, and would not warrant Zimmerman shooting Martin Either way his whole story is again, filled with holes. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35346813]"The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning." It makes sense that he'd be cleaned up in that case. As for bruising from a broken nose I remember when I broke my nose it took a good day for it to start bruising up pretty bad. Bruising is kinda funky, for some people its immediate, some it takes time, others it doesn't happen at all. In my opinion while this video does open for speculation as to the nose breaking, it doesn't prove anything about him being bloodied. EMT's always clean you up, they have to to ensure there's no other injuries underneath the blood.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but we don't wipe up the blood and leave 2 minutes later. If it's severe, we take you to the hospital. If you're mild, the bandages at the very least stay on. I've said it like 10 times in detail, but in ALL my experience, this guy has no indications of having any severe injuries to his head. If he does, they're extremely minor which does NOT warrant him to murder Trayvon Martin.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35346818]Lets look at the two things if Zimmerman truly was attacked in such a life threatening way. 1 - severe wound: Which would be visible, it's not. 2 - Minor wound: Would be somewhat visible, and would not warrant Zimmerman shooting Martin Either way his whole story is again, filled with holes.[/QUOTE] You don't need to have a large wound to create a lot of bleeding from your head. Have you ever cut your neck shaving before and notice how it takes forever to get the bleeding to stop? It is entirely possible he may have had multiple micro abrasions, something you would not be able to make out in that quality of video. That coupled with the fact that he may not bruise easily would make those injury hard to detect with this quality of video.
[I]This is a shocking development[/I].
[QUOTE=MR-X;35338288]Are you kidding? Police wanted to press charges on zimmerman but the DA will not let them. Police have been wanting to charge him.[/QUOTE] No, [I]a detective[/I] is stated as wanting to charge him. Literally the only person we know of that wanted this to be an investigation is Serino via affidavit, which makes him the odd man out.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35346875]You don't need to have a large wound to create a lot of bleeding from your head. Have you ever cut your neck shaving before and notice how it takes forever to get the bleeding to stop?[/quote] Yeah, that's kinda my point. It's going to bleed, and we treat bleeding with pressure dressing and bandaging. He would have some manner of bandaging on his head. [quote]It is entirely possible he may have had multiple micro abrasions, something you would not be able to make out in that quality of video. That coupled with the fact that he may not bruise easily would make those injury hard to detect with this quality of video.[/QUOTE] Micro Abrasions? I don't think you know that's not actually a thing.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35346818]Lets look at the two things if Zimmerman truly was attacked in such a life threatening way. 1 - severe wound: Which would be visible, it's not. 2 - Minor wound: Would be somewhat visible, and would not warrant Zimmerman shooting Martin Either way his whole story is again, filled with holes. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] Yeah, but we don't wipe up the blood and leave 2 minutes later. If it's severe, we take you to the hospital. If you're mild, the bandages at the very least stay on. I've said it like 10 times in detail, but in ALL my experience, this guy has no indications of having any severe injuries to his head. If he does, they're extremely minor which does NOT warrant him to murder Trayvon Martin.[/QUOTE] Injury extent does not equal how much of a right you have to defend yourself. The law states that if you feel that your life is in jeopardy you have the right to defend yourself. Now if it is true that Trayvon hand knocked him to the ground and gotten on top of him that's more than enough to feel your life is threatened, thus justifying the use of a firearm. Do I necessarily agree with that? No, but that's what the law entails. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35346914]Yeah, that's kinda my point. It's going to bleed, and we treat bleeding with pressure dressing and bandaging. He would have some manner of bandaging on his head. Micro Abrasions? I don't think you know that's not actually a thing.[/QUOTE] I know what micro abrasions are, I've got a permanent injury in my left eye from getting hit with a rifle barrel that caused multiple micro abrasions which like to tear back open from time to time. If the bleeding has stopped and is successively clotted there's no need for bandaging.
Good one ABC. For 90% of the video his head is covered up by your shitty logo.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35346942]Injury extent does not equal how much of a right you have to defend yourself. The law states that if you feel that your life is in jeopardy you have the right to defend yourself. Now if it is true that Trayvon hand knocked him to the ground and gotten on top of him that's more than enough to feel your life is threatened, thus justifying the use of a firearm. Do I necessarily agree with that? No, but that's what the law entails.[/quote] Well no shit, I'm not arguing with what the law is, I'm just saying it's stupid and can give this guy unneeded leeway. [quote]I know what micro abrasions are, I've got a permanent injury in my left eye from getting hit with a rifle barrel that caused multiple micro abrasions which like to tear back open from time to time.[/quote] Micro abrasions are a surgical method. I think you're thinking of something different. [quote]If the bleeding has stopped and is successively clotted there's no need for bandaging.[/QUOTE] This guy said his nose was broken and his head was slammed repeatedly into the concrete (after he said he was on grass, but that's a different matter) there are zero signs this is the case. There is NOTHING indicating this.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35346786]Don't pretend you know more than him, because you don't.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's been stated that Trayvon did not live in that neighborhood. Bat-shit also made the claim that Zimmerman killed Trayvon "because he thought he was trespassing" which is some pretty wild speculation that is not supported by any evidence. I'm not saying I know more than anyone, just that I'm neutral on this issue and that I'm not going to make up my own speculation of what happened and then start cherry picking pieces of facts that fit my preconceptions. That isn't how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35347030]Well no shit, I'm not arguing with what the law is, I'm just saying it's stupid and can give this guy unneeded leeway. Micro abrasions are a surgical method. I think you're thinking of something different. This guy said his nose was broken and his head was slammed repeatedly into the concrete (after he said he was on grass, but that's a different matter) there are zero signs this is the case. There is NOTHING indicating this.[/QUOTE] Well what's law is law. On top of that you can't really make that law more clear cut. If someone is on top of you you have no idea what they're going to do. They could punch you a few times and leave, they could pummel the hell out of you until your unconscious, or they could beat you to death. That's why the law is the way it is, because once your in that type of situation it could go in any direction. Micro abrasions are very small abrasive wounds, or when used in medical applications small abrasions made into tissue or teeth or whatever for that matter. An abrasion is the rubbing away of tissue, much like a rug burn. So using the term micro abrasions, or very small rug burn, would still be correct. So it was described to me by the doctor I was seeing. You can get your head slammed into concrete and not bleed, you can get it slammed and not bruise. In any event, the police logged what they saw. Why would they lie about what they saw when their the ones trying to get him charged?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35347099]Well what's law is law. On top of that you can't really make that law more clear cut. If someone is on top of you you have no idea what they're going to do. They could punch you a few times and leave, they could pummel the hell out of you until your unconscious, or they could beat you to death. That's why the law is the way it is, because once your in that type of situation it could go in any direction.[/quote] This is why we're examining everything surrounding this. Micro abrasions are very small abrasive wounds, or when used in medical applications small abrasions made into tissue or teeth or whatever for that matter. An abrasion is the rubbing away of tissue, much like a rug burn. So using the term micro abrasions, or very small rug burn, would still be correct. So it was described to me by the doctor I was seeing.[/quote] Your doctor was probably just making up a term to describe what was happening. I really don't see how this is relevant as it's clear he wouldn't have received a "micro abrasion". [quote]You can get your head slammed into concrete and not bleed[/quote] Fucking unlikely. [quote]you can get it slammed and not bruise.[/quote] Also unlikely. This is implying Zimmerman claimed it was once. [quote]In any event, the police logged what they saw. Why would they lie about what they saw when their the ones trying to get him charged?[/QUOTE] Where did the police log that he had micro abrasions? What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35347212]This is why we're examining everything surrounding this. Your doctor was probably just making up a term to describe what was happening. I really don't see how this is relevant as it's clear he wouldn't have received a "micro abrasion". Fucking unlikely. Also unlikely. This is implying Zimmerman claimed it was once. Where did the police log that he had micro abrasions? What are you talking about?[/QUOTE] Point taken. Small cuts, whatever you want to call them. The police said they saw blood coming from his head. When I was stationed in camp pendalton I got into a nasty fight that lead to my head being slammed into a wall 5 times. I didn't bruise or bleed, but my head hurt like hell for a good while. My point is while this video does provide some insight, it's not some magical clear cut answer to what everyone is wondering about. Wait for the damn court case and stop pretending your(the general your) some magical PC private eye.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35347271]Point taken. Small cuts, whatever you want to call them. The police said they saw blood coming from his head.[/quote] Perhaps I missed it, but where? [quote]When I was stationed in camp pendalton I got into a nasty fight that lead to my head being slammed into a wall 5 times. I didn't bruise or bleed, but my head hurt like hell for a good while.[/quote] i can point out a handful of issues that make the smallest difference. At the very least, he would have some manner of abrasions. And your anecdote is kinda useless seeing as you're claiming he DID bleed. [quote]My point is while this video does provide some insight, it's not some magical clear cut answer to what everyone is wondering about.[/quote] Well no shit, for all I know, he could have been hopped up on drugs and had some cerebral trauma. I wouldn't know because the police dropped the ball with the investigation. [quote]Wait for the damn court case and stop pretending your(the general your) some magical PC private eye.[/QUOTE] Or I have a pair of eyes and knowledge pertaining to his medical issues. To be fair, if I'm pretending I'm some "magical PC Private eye", so are you.
[QUOTE=MR-X;35338288]Are you kidding? Police wanted to press charges on zimmerman but the DA will not let them. Police have been wanting to charge him.[/QUOTE] shutup dumbass, stop trying to sound smart [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35346942]Injury extent does not equal how much of a right you have to defend yourself. The law states that if you feel that your life is in jeopardy you have the right to defend yourself. Now if it is true that Trayvon hand knocked him to the ground and gotten on top of him that's more than enough to feel your life is threatened, thus justifying the use of a firearm. Do I necessarily agree with that? No, but that's what the law entails.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf"]Read a jury instruction.[/URL] There is no given rule that any amount of perceived threat is valid. [QUOTE]The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; [I]however[/I], to justify the use of deadly force, [B]the appearance of danger must have been so real that a [I]reasonably cautious and prudent person[/I] under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.[/B][/QUOTE] If you don't "necessarily agree with that", then it's bullshit. That's what the law says. A jury should decide if they believe a teenager punching you merits the application of lethal force, when he apparently didn't have you beaten down hard enough to prevent you from using your firearm. That's also a nonissue given: [QUOTE]However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself], unless the force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] reasonably believed that [he] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and [B]had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35347959]Perhaps I missed it, but where? i can point out a handful of issues that make the smallest difference. At the very least, he would have some manner of abrasions. And your anecdote is kinda useless seeing as you're claiming he DID bleed. Well no shit, for all I know, he could have been hopped up on drugs and had some cerebral trauma. I wouldn't know because the police dropped the ball with the investigation. Or I have a pair of eyes and knowledge pertaining to his medical issues. To be fair, if I'm pretending I'm some "magical PC Private eye", so are you.[/QUOTE] I didn't claim, the police did. What I'm doing is speculating, playing a devils advocate if you will. I'm just pointing out that everyone's theories as to what happened can have their holes poked into it , especially since all the information we are being sent comes from bias 3rd party media sources.
[QUOTE=Cushie;35338160] Probably not, witness accounts are never taken as 100% anyway because they often don't remember what they saw properly. It has been proven that if an officer asks leading questions, it can force a witness to change their story entirely and completely believe something that never happened, which I wouldn't be suprised at considering how the police handled this case so far.[/QUOTE] But it was clearly bullshit that they "saw" him being punched etc, there is no way you can say you might have seen something different
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35348390][URL="http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf"]Read a jury instruction.[/URL] There is no given rule that any amount of perceived threat is valid.[/QUOTE] [Quote=3.6f Justifiable use of deadly force] A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another. Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. [/quote] It states right there that if the person has reason to believe immanent death or great bodily harm are about to take place they have the right to use deadly force. When someone is on top of you hitting you the possibility of both is without a doubt there.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35348559]It states right there that if the person has reason to believe immanent death or great bodily harm are about to take place they have the right to use deadly force. When someone is on top of you hitting you the possibility of both is without a doubt there.[/QUOTE] I want you to reread that and ask if that makes sense. "Has reason to believe" This is implying they can start shooting if someone hasn't even touched them yet. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35348506]I didn't claim, the police did. What I'm doing is speculating, playing a devils advocate if you will. I'm just pointing out that everyone's theories as to what happened can have their holes poked into it , especially since all the information we are being sent comes from bias 3rd party media sources.[/QUOTE] Every story can have holes poked into it. Zimmerman's is a fucking epidemic.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35348640]I want you to reread that and ask if that makes sense. "Has reason to believe" This is implying they can start shooting if someone hasn't even touched them yet. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] Every story can have holes poked into it. Zimmerman's is a fucking epidemic.[/QUOTE] If someone is running at you with a knife you've got the right to shoot them. If someone is running at you at all and you feel as if they have the intent to cause great harm or death you can shoot them. Now that doesn't make it a free for all wild west type of law because it is up to the court to determine whether or not there was a justification in the use of force. So it would be wise not to just shoot at anyone that comes toward you.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35348764]If someone is running at you with a knife you've got the right to shoot them. If someone is running at you at all and you feel as if they have the intent to cause great harm or death you can shoot them. Now that doesn't make it a free for all wild west type of law because it is up to the court to determine whether or not there was a justification in the use of force. So it would be wise not to just shoot at anyone that comes toward you.[/QUOTE] Okay then, that's what we're arguing, this was not justified. And his crumbling story is attesting to that.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35348885]Okay then, that's what we're arguing, this was not justified. And his crumbling story is attesting to that.[/QUOTE] If it's true that Trayvon was on top of him then it's plenty grounds to be considered life threatening. So if this is indeed the case the jury could find that it was justifiable. If the did not find the use of force justifiable though he would be charged with man slaughter, assuming that they find it not to be racially motivated (to which it would be a hate crime) or a case of 2nd degree murder.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35348640] Every story can have holes poked into it. Zimmerman's is a fucking epidemic.[/QUOTE] A story that you don't have all the information too often looks flimsy. So his story may be weak. Or, his story is fine, and your understanding of it is weak. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35348885]Okay then, that's what we're arguing, this was not justified. And his crumbling story is attesting to that.[/QUOTE] You can't fucking argue when you aren't fucking informed you dolt. You aren't the fucking police chief, nor are you the fucking DA. You are not privy to some secret information that proves Zimmerman guilty.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35349185]A story that you don't have all the information too often looks flimsy. So his story may be weak. Or, his story is fine, and your understanding of it is weak.[/quote] I dunno, the fact it keeps changing and none of it adds up, not to mention terrible police work and this whole incident is his fault to begin with, I'm just leaning towards what makes more sense. [quote]You can't fucking argue when you aren't fucking informed you dolt.[/quote] Oh I'm sorry, what are YOU doing? [quote]You aren't the fucking police chief, nor are you the fucking DA. You are not privy to some secret information that proves Zimmerman guilty.[/QUOTE] No, again, I have fucking eyes. For all I know, some super evidence may drop out of the sky proving Zimmerman is as innocent as can be. But from what I see, this is highly unlikely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.