Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Head lacerations.



According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

There were traces, yes, but the corner said it was not possible to check how long the THC had been in his system (It must have entered in the last 72 hours, though).

(Playing the Devil's advocate)

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

Not many.

But it can certainly heighten paranoia and I've known more violently inclined people who were not placated by it either.

Frazzled wrote:
Medical report also noted a broken nose.

It's only said a tender nose so far as I can see, unless you're looking at another source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But it can certainly heighten paranoia...

A stranger following you at night might not help either.

...and I've known more violently inclined people who were not placated by it either.

From what I can tell he doesn't seem to have a very violent history. The worst he's been arrested for is graffiti.

Frazzled wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

I noticed that as well, however, CNN reported it with the tender nose. It could be that that was the statement given by Zimmerman, and upon further examination, the broken nose became apparent.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Medical report also noted a broken nose.

It's only said a tender nose so far as I can see, unless you're looking at another source.

Fair enough, another report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18093420

Frazzled, I figured it out. The reason it says tenderness is because that line was taken from the Fireman's (First one on the scene) report of Zimmerman.

Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

PhantomViper wrote:Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

You know, there's due process, witnesses to talk to to, a trial, and all the other stuff to go through.

The jury could convict him. If it were me, I would. He was told not to bring a gun, broke protocol, and chased this kid. Trayvon had every human right to defend himself from a perceived threat.

The first thing I think most people think when they see those pictures is they hardly look life threatening. It doesn't actually take much to bash in someones head, and they must have cleaned up a lot of blood. Scalp wounds bleed profusely even superficial ones. Apparently not his...then again I don't know what paramedics call minor bleeding; non arterial?

"Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding," paramedic Michael Brandy wrote about Zimmerman's injuries in the report.

In any event it supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense. In other news the FBI can not (or will not) identify the voice crying for help as either person. It seems more and more likely that Zimmerman will go free without regard to this going to trial.

There will be a trial to forestal a riot. Afterwards there will be a riot.

Chowderhead wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

You know, there's due process, witnesses to talk to to, a trial, and all the other stuff to go through.

The jury could convict him. If it were me, I would. He was told not to bring a gun, broke protocol, and chased this kid. Trayvon had every human right to defend himself from a perceived threat.

Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Also convicting the guy based on made up stuff is really simple, I hear:

- he was never told to not bring anything, the operator just told him that it wasn't necessary to chase the kid;
- there is no such thing as "protocol" regarding how two civilians interact with each other;
- Trayvon may have had every right to defend himself, but according to the actual law, and the fact that he actually had bruises Zimmerman also had the right to shoot and kill him...

But is nice to know you would convict someone without even taking notice of the law, just based on your prejudices...

Frazzled wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............



I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

PhantomViper wrote:Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Also convicting the guy based on made up stuff is really simple, I hear:

- he was never told to not bring anything, the operator just told him that it wasn't necessary to chase the kid;
- there is no such thing as "protocol" regarding how two civilians interact with each other;
- Trayvon may have had every right to defend himself, but according to the actual law, and the fact that he actually had bruises Zimmerman also had the right to shoot and kill him...

But is nice to know you would convict someone without even taking notice of the law, just based on your prejudices...

People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............

"Hey doc, I got in a fight, I need you to write that I have a broken nose"
"But your nose isn't broken...."
"Come on doc, you know my family. We've been through gak together..."
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

...does this really happen? Seriously?

biccat wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............

"Hey doc, I got in a fight, I need you to write that I have a broken nose"
"But your nose isn't broken...."
"Come on doc, you know my family. We've been through gak together..."
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

...does this really happen? Seriously?

"Hey doc, I gave birth to my baby in Kenya, but I need to you to sign this birth certificate that says I gave birth here"
"But that kid is 3 years old!"
"Come on doc, you know us, that baby could be president some day!"
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

Since when do you have a problem with wild speculation

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

PhantomViper wrote:

Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Man, the internets never ceases to surprise me
Someday I'm gonna make my students read this so they take their classes more seriously

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

No one has claimed these are photoshopped yet? For shame!

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

It's an example of why it's generally a bad idea to fire warning shots. You shouldn't draw your gun unless you're planning on using it immediately, and by use I don't mean firing a warning shot.

It's also an example of how mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous and horrible, just like any other form of zero tolerance policy.

Hordini wrote:

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

It's an example of why it's generally a bad idea to fire warning shots. You shouldn't draw your gun unless you're planning on using it immediately, and by use I don't mean firing a warning shot.

It's also an example of how mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous and horrible, just like any other form of zero tolerance policy.

Agree on both counts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:No one has claimed these are photoshopped yet? For shame!

Why would he photoshop those? He probably just told the cops "look, I'm in trouble, but I know you are all racists so help me out. Just rough me up a little, then take a picture, and we will say the dead black kid did it!"

(Of course I am joking here)

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Zimmerman's not white. However he has a white name and the MSM went after it like a wiener dog after a dropped sausage on that basis, even falsifying 911 tapes to support it. Zimmeran's name was Jorge Zera this wouldn't have even made it to the local news.

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

How on earth did I defeat my own argument? I pointed out that even if Zimmerman feared for his life when Martin was attacking him (something I highly doubt, frankly), IF Zimmerman was the initiator (which evidence suggests he is) then Stand your Ground no longer applies, and Zimmerman's defense goes right out the window. He started a fight, he escalated said fight, and it ended with him shooting someone in the chest at nearly point blank range. The coroner's report [said that the gunshot that killed Martin was fired from 18" or less. You're also talking about a grown man against a teenager half his size.

And Zimmerman is hispanic, not "white" at least in the caucasian sense. This is a huge deal because an unarmed teenager was gunned down on his way home, by a neighborhood watch guy who was told by police not to engage. His watch group ALSO has rules against engaging. Obviously, there are nuances beyond that. But to paint this as only a 'black against white' issue is downright foolish.

I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Frazzled wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

They do have the calls that Martin made to his girlfriend where he mentions being followed by someone. Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

First off, you're disgusting if this is a serious post.

Secondly, the officer that arrived on the scene DID want to charge Zimmerman. It was the DA that refused to do it, not the officer on scene.

streamdragon wrote: It was the DA that refused to do it, not the officer on scene.

If the DA said the bloke didn't want charging, then that's good enough for me.

If the plumber says your toilet is ok, that's good enough for me, if the mechanic says my car is ok, that's good enough too. If the carpenter says my skirting board is alright, that's fine as well.

But... the top dog.. the fething DA said its fine, but no no, you want me to agree with.. what.. you a guy on the internet, and racist movie maker Spike Lee.

Cheers then, ill just be over here laughing.

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?