Black Teen Shot 3

Off Topic
421

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What x-ray vision was used to determine fracture?[/quote]

Did Zimmerman state his nose is broken, or did a doctor?

I don’t think someone saying their nose is broken, but not actually being broken, automatically discredits them, especially if they have no formal medical training.

Hell if threw in the qualified “I think” before saying his nose is broken then it really doesn’t matter if it was or not. A lot of people not used to getting hit will get popped in the nose and think it might be broken.[/quote]

Well, they seem to be taking the man at his word for everything possible and are suddenly trained medically enough to post still pictures in defense even though the video shows a black man with a red and swelling nose.

Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken. You wouldn’t know this if the trauma was so minor that no redness or swelling is present without x-ray.

Mind you, I only take a few hundred x-rays a week.[/quote]
Of teeth.

Just a really quick aside, what do you charge for a cleaning and do you do whitening?

Back on topic, none of this new info changes a single thing.[/quote]

Of skulls, trauma injuries and more. I do many surgical procedures, not just fillings…so yeah, I do know trauma especially when it comes to head trauma.

You do realize that people who break their front teeth (and often their noses) come to me, right?

422

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What x-ray vision was used to determine fracture?[/quote]

Did Zimmerman state his nose is broken, or did a doctor?

I don’t think someone saying their nose is broken, but not actually being broken, automatically discredits them, especially if they have no formal medical training.

Hell if threw in the qualified “I think” before saying his nose is broken then it really doesn’t matter if it was or not. A lot of people not used to getting hit will get popped in the nose and think it might be broken.[/quote]

Well, they seem to be taking the man at his word for everything possible and are suddenly trained medically enough to post still pictures in defense even though the video shows a black man with a red and swelling nose.

Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken. You wouldn’t know this if the trauma was so minor that no redness or swelling is present without x-ray.

Mind you, I only take a few hundred x-rays a week.[/quote]
Of teeth.

Just a really quick aside, what do you charge for a cleaning and do you do whitening?

Back on topic, none of this new info changes a single thing.[/quote]

Of skulls, trauma injuries and more. I do many surgical procedures, not just fillings…so yeah, I do know trauma especially when it comes to head trauma.

You do realize that people who break their front teeth (and often their noses) come to me, right?[/quote]
Then you would know not all broken noses are alike and a shitty camera wouldn’t show detail.

423

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Furthermore, nothing is disproving Zimmerman’s account; a far more important aspect.[/quote]

My understanding is that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not acting in self defense. Unless there is a smoking gun that comes out and completely and clearly disproves his statement, I’m not sure how they can get a conviction. This is of course assuming a truly impartial jury, which apparently you can get in Florida based on the Casey Anthony trial.

The police messing up the investigation could actually help the defense to raise that reasonable doubt.

Hell, he probably won’t even have to take the stand in his own defense.[/quote]

It is up to him to prove his claim of self defense. Since his account of events allegedly matches up with the physical evidence and the witness reports are inconclusive, he has a very good case. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is lying and that whatever they are charging with is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to much, if anything, to disprove Zimmerman’s claim that I have seen. I don’t expect these new witness statements to stand up to scrutiny ,and even if they do, neither really saw anything to disprove Zimmerman’s claims.[/quote]

If things are this cut and dry, then I guess this won’t play out until a civil trial.

Either way, this man’s life is ruined and that family doesn’t get their kid back.

I think the media as a whole along with many celebrities have acted like asses in this case.

I think Zimmerman likely thought he was going to play hero but his own bias and prejudice backfired big time.

I think Trayvon was a pretty average kid who was likely staying with Dad due to behavioral issues. I am guessing this is the exact opposite of what Dad intended.

This whole scene sucks…but one thing I do NOT think happened is some insane attack from Trayvon for no reason.

Trayvon would be alive right now if the wannabe wasn’t trying to play cop.

In the grand scheme of things, it is not my responsibility to pay the price for the actions of some other guy across town with “dark” skin tone…and the fact that the black community focuses on the race aspects should be obvious.

This case would have gone largely unnoticed and simply been filed away if that family had not gone public. Their son would be dead and the killer would still be living down the street.

If other black residents are noting an issue with Zimmerman, that civil trial won’t go well.

424

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Then you would know not all broken noses are alike and a shitty camera wouldn’t show detail.[/quote]

? I do know that…which is why I said ACTS LIKE and explained that in detail.

Kobe Bryan ACTED LIKE he had a broken nose. He SHOWED THE SIGNS of a broken nose, including redness and swelling. All of that can be seen in that video I posted even though someone posted still pics to say otherwise.

Otherwise, he wouldn’t know he had one until x-rays were taken and a diagnosis given.

425

Question to any Law types in the room.

Why Would anyone care about Zimmermans Wounds? Head or Nose?

Wounds like his do not prove he was JUMPED. It only show that a struggle/fight happen. I think it’s relevance is small.

Why is no one talking about how and why these 2 people came into contact?

The route on the MAP shows both parties heading to The Place Martin was staying. If the prosecutor can show Zimmerman initiated the Confrontation how can DEFENSE be on the TABLE?

MARTIN has a REASON to be on that block heading in the direction(to go home). Zimmermans only reason is to follow/chase or confront Martin. He instigated a confrontation if this is the case. Or am I wrong?

I don’t understand why the injuries matter to the degree of the above. If someone follows me then appears to be hindering me from my destination and we struggle how am I to blame if I was getting the better in the fight/struggle?

Any legal help on the above please?

426

[quote]four60 wrote:
Question to any Law types in the room.

Why Would anyone care about Zimmermans Wounds? Head or Nose?

Wounds like his do not prove he was JUMPED. It only show that a struggle/fight happen. I think it’s relevance is small.

Why is no one talking about how and why these 2 people came into contact?

The route on the MAP shows both parties heading to The Place Martin was staying. If the prosecutor can show Zimmerman initiated the Confrontation how can DEFENSE be on the TABLE?

MARTIN has a REASON to be on that block heading in the direction(to go home). Zimmermans only reason is to follow/chase or confront Martin. He instigated a confrontation if this is the case. Or am I wrong?

I don’t understand why the injuries matter to the degree of the above. If someone follows me then appears to be hindering me from my destination and we struggle how am I to blame if I was getting the better in the fight/struggle?

Any legal help on the above please? [/quote]

The main problem is that we don’t know what happened between the two before the fight. Heading someone off is not in and of itself illegal. I can see how Trayvon could have seen it as threatening and immediately reacted and attacked, and he would have been right to do so. I probably would have done the same thing. We don’t know exactly what was said when. We have a good idea that words were exchanged based on the girlfriend’s comments so a fight did not break out immediately. We also do not know the Zimmerman was not jumped by Trayvon returning to his vehicle. That map was not a chronological timeline of how the chase happened. Zimmerman could have gotten to that point ahead of Martin, not see anything due to the darkness and turned back just as Trayvon came close enough to see him. Trayvon could have had great eyesight and saw Zimmerman first and hid until he turned away. Zimmerman could be a Jedi Master and sensed where Trayvon was going to be and what he was going to do so he planned accordingly and set all this up and used his Jedi mind tricks on the cops to make them believe his story. We can come up with a bunch of different stories about what could have happened based on the evidence, which is why Zimmerman will not likely be convicted of anything. Without more physical evidence or a reliable witness that actually saw and heard everything, we just do not know.

427

Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!!

428

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
Question to any Law types in the room.

Why Would anyone care about Zimmermans Wounds? Head or Nose?

Wounds like his do not prove he was JUMPED. It only show that a struggle/fight happen. I think it’s relevance is small.

Why is no one talking about how and why these 2 people came into contact?

The route on the MAP shows both parties heading to The Place Martin was staying. If the prosecutor can show Zimmerman initiated the Confrontation how can DEFENSE be on the TABLE?

MARTIN has a REASON to be on that block heading in the direction(to go home). Zimmermans only reason is to follow/chase or confront Martin. He instigated a confrontation if this is the case. Or am I wrong?

I don’t understand why the injuries matter to the degree of the above. If someone follows me then appears to be hindering me from my destination and we struggle how am I to blame if I was getting the better in the fight/struggle?

Any legal help on the above please? [/quote]

The main problem is that we don’t know what happened between the two before the fight. Heading someone off is not in and of itself illegal. I can see how

Trayvon could have seen it as threatening and immediately reacted and attacked, and he would have been right to do so. I probably would have done the same thing. We don’t know exactly what was said when. We have a good idea that words were exchanged based on the girlfriend’s comments so a fight did not break out immediately. We also do not know the Zimmerman was not jumped by Trayvon returning to his vehicle. That map was not a chronological timeline of how the chase happened. Zimmerman could have gotten to that point ahead of Martin, not see anything due to the darkness and turned back just as Trayvon came close enough to see him. Trayvon could have had great eyesight and saw Zimmerman first and hid until he turned away. Zimmerman could be a Jedi Master and sensed where Trayvon was going to be and what he was going to do so he planned accordingly and set all this up and used his Jedi mind tricks on the cops to make them believe his story. We can come up with a bunch of different stories about what could have happened based on the
evidence, which is why Zimmerman will not likely be convicted of anything. Without more physical evidence or a reliable witness that actually saw and heard everything, we just do not know.
[/quote]

I have to say Doc that is a whole lot of Maybe and If’s.

I’m not going to comment on the girlfriend statements until it’s confirmed thru phone records or recordings.

Based on the 911 call the kid runs so he is ahead of Zim. The kid is shot on the road headed to his house. Why is Zimmerman there if not to pursue?

Let’s be Clear Zimmerman knows he hold a gun and that the police are in route and he believes Martin is a bad guy Ll this is from the tapes.

Zimmerman could have prevented the confrontation by NOT pursuing MARTIN which he states on the 911 tape.

So if you are the one following how is Any confrontation not seen as a fault on your part?

429

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:

430

[quote]four60 wrote:

I have to say Doc that is a whole lot of Maybe and If’s.

I’m not going to comment on the girlfriend statements until it’s confirmed thru phone records or recordings.

Based on the 911 call the kid runs so he is ahead of Zim. The kid is shot on the road headed to his house. Why is Zimmerman there if not to pursue?

Let’s be Clear Zimmerman knows he hold a gun and that the police are in route and he believes Martin is a bad guy Ll this is from the tapes.

Zimmerman could have prevented the confrontation by NOT pursuing MARTIN which he states on the 911 tape.

So if you are the one following how is Any confrontation not seen as a fault on your part?
[/quote]

I know there were a lot of ifs and what not’s in there, that was my point. No one is saying that Zimmerman should have chased Martin. Of course him staying in the car would have prevented this whole mess. One problem is intent. If it could be proven that Zimmerman chased after Trayvon with the intent to shoot him or assault him, then he could be convicted. Zimmerman sure as hell will not admit to that and Trayvon is dead and we have no other way of knowing what exactly happened. If Zimmerman was going back to his car and Trayvon jumped him like he claims, then that was an unprovoked attack and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and all that. That is what he is claiming and according to the police, that story checks out with the evidence they have so it doesn’t really matter how many different and reasonable scenarios we can come up with. Until there is proof that Zimmerman is lying and that something else happened, there will not likely be an arrest or conviction.

That does not mean that I think Zimmerman is telling the truth and he is innocent, it just means that I do not think there is enough evidence to convict him. That happens. I do think he is full of shit, but things like this happen without ever being reported on to the national media. If it wasn’t for the media jumping on the race thing that may or may not be a factor in this, those of us outside of the immediate area of the shooting would never have heard of this case at all.

431

[quote]therajraj wrote:

But here’s a quick summary of the last 3 threads:[/quote]

Excellent summary, well done sir.

432

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

But here’s a quick summary of the last 3 threads:[/quote]

Excellent summary, well done sir.
[/quote]

Agreed

433

At least you guys agree on something. lol

434

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

I have to say Doc that is a whole lot of Maybe and If’s.

I’m not going to comment on the girlfriend statements until it’s confirmed thru phone records or recordings.

Based on the 911 call the kid runs so he is ahead of Zim. The kid is shot on the road headed to his house. Why is Zimmerman there if not to pursue?

Let’s be Clear Zimmerman knows he hold a gun and that the police are in route and he believes Martin is a bad guy Ll this is from the tapes.

Zimmerman could have prevented the confrontation by NOT pursuing MARTIN which he states on the 911 tape.

So if you are the one following how is Any confrontation not seen as a fault on your part?
[/quote]

I know there were a lot of ifs and what not’s in there, that was my point. No one is saying that Zimmerman should have chased Martin. Of course him staying in the car would have prevented this whole mess. One problem is intent. If it could be proven that Zimmerman chased after Trayvon with the intent to shoot him or assault him, then he could be convicted. Zimmerman sure as hell will not admit to that and Trayvon is dead and we have no other way of knowing what exactly happened. If Zimmerman was going back to his car and Trayvon jumped him like he claims, then that was an unprovoked attack and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and all that. That is what he is claiming and according to the police, that story checks out with the evidence they have so it doesn’t really matter how many different and reasonable scenarios we can come up with. Until there is proof that Zimmerman is lying and that something else happened, there will not likely be an arrest or conviction.

That does not mean that I think Zimmerman is telling the truth and he is innocent, it just means that I do not think there is enough evidence to convict him. That happens. I do think he is full of shit, but things like this happen without ever being reported on to the national media. If it wasn’t for the media jumping
on the race thing that may or may not be a factor in this, those of us outside of the immediate area of the shooting would never have heard of this case at all.[/quote]

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.

435

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

I ahve to agree. Why would they need to prove “intent” beyond the clear fact that he was convinced this was a criminal, chased said criminal while stating “They always get away” which seems to imply he won’t let that happen again, and knew he had a gun on him.

If that isn’t “intent”, what does he need to do, literally say, “I iz gonna killz you”?

436

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]
I think people are arguing the right to innocence until proven guilty, the right to trial by jury if it charges are justified et cetera; a much bigger issue than Zimmerman/Martin who are merely examples.

437

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

“Pursuing” someone is not in and of itself illegal. If he were to continue doing it onto private property or over a period of time, or if asked to stop, or something like that then it would fall under harassment or stalking or something similar. The point here is the WHY he pursued Trayvon is the important question here. If it was to observe where he went and what he was up to in order to report it to the police, then that is not illegal. Wrong and stupid, yes, but being stupid is not illegal. If he intended to apprehend Trayvon and hold him until the police got there, that would have been illegal. If he intended to confront Trayvon after chasing him down, then yes Trayvon had a right to defend himself from the threat that Zimmerman represented. If Zimmerman had stopped chasing him and was going back to his vehicle, then Trayvon had no right to attack him at that point. We just plain do not know enough to know for certain (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) which of these, or another, scenario is what happened. If the physical evidence matches Zimmerman’s claims like the police seem to be saying, that is probably enough to make his case for self defense and it will be up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Also, the fact that he had a gun is not really important either if he can actually make a decent argument for self defense. All carrying that gun meant is that he was exercising his constitutional right to bear arms, and his right to carry a concealed weapon through having a CCW permit. If it could be proven that he chased after Trayvon with the intent to attack him, or detain him against his will, or assault him THEN the fact that he had a gun would become important.

438

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]
I think people are arguing the right to innocence until proven guilty, the right to trial by jury if it charges are justified et cetera; a much bigger issue than Zimmerman/Martin who are merely examples.[/quote]

And with due respect to this incident, I don’t want my right to self defense compared to this case of what seems to be bad judgement.

439

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

I ahve to agree. Why would they need to prove “intent” beyond the clear fact that he was convinced this was a criminal, chased said criminal while stating “They always get away” which seems to imply he won’t let that happen again, and knew he had a gun on him.

If that isn’t “intent”, what does he need to do, literally say, “I iz gonna killz you”?[/quote]

A defense lawyer could just as easily argue that ‘they always get away’ implies Zimmerman’s knowledge that he doesn’t have the power to stop it from happening(not talking gun, talking legal), and that he should give up, turn around, and go back to his truck.

440

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]
I think people are arguing the right to innocence until proven guilty, the right to trial by jury if it charges are justified et cetera; a much bigger issue than Zimmerman/Martin who are merely examples.[/quote]

YES. I grew up in a country where you were guilty if the people who had power said you were and a trial by jury was not a right, and they could sentence you to death for just about anything. The justice system in America is not perfect by any means, but innocent until proven guilty and having to justify an arrest are a lot better than the alternative. I know that first hand.