George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #4

[m00c0w]

Again, you are selectively quoting both my statement and the definition to create a strawman against which to argue. That is what I have the problem with, and what makes your argument invalid. I'd suggest that you simply move on.

Let me put it this way: What else do you consider relevant to the definition? The examples? The word in the form not used? The synonyms that are... synonyms and not a definition?

 

[Karmady]

I believe what was said during the testimony- We don't need you to do that.

They really prefer you to watch at a distance. From what I understood this meaning was all to protect the the person doing the watching. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're exactly right. And also to protect LE from potential liability.

 

[DIBSY]

I'm saying the PA opinion was based in part on what George reported to him. The PA saw no defects.
George Zimmerman never got an x-ray

Which is very telling given med staff is X-Ray happy when there's even the teeniest possibility there's concussion et al. They want to be covered against any law suits down the road, which makes sense. Obviously they looked upon GZ's minor scalp scratches as neglible.

 

[corundogs]

The bloody nose picture was taken when he was sitting in the back of a police car.

Exactly. And then hours later in the police photos, there is no swelling of his nose.

Where did that swelling go? If it was broken, it wouldn't have gone down like that.

So how does that photo with the blood and swelling on the side not show up just a few hours later?

One theory is the cell phone photo was photoshopped. I don't know the chain of command with the photo, do you?

But I do find it very odd that swelling would that prominent immediately after, and then be gone in just a few hours - so little time that the small surface scratches on his head hadn't even stopped bleeding!!!

Those wounds in and of themselves are suspect to me, since bodyparts being repeatedly banged against concrete normally has abrasions not scratches/cuts/slices (pick a word).

But that's beside the point. We are talking about the swelling on the side of his nose being there in one cell phone photo but then absent in police photos.

 

[cityslick]

The only racial profiling was done by TM. jmo

Some truth to this, the only racial slur we hear came from TM.

 

[m00c0w]

Which is very telling given med staff is X-Ray happy when there's even the teeniest possibility there's concussion et al. They want to be covered against any law suits down the road, which makes sense. Obviously they looked upon GZ's minor scalp scratches as neglible.

What would an x-ray do with respect to a concussion? I certainly have not received X-rays when I was concussed.

 

[ncgramma]

Has that been testified to /in evidence? Link?

I heard in opening statements that he did not have a significant injury to his nose and required "not even one suture" for his injuries. I'm expecting to hear someone testify to back this up.

Opening statement aren't necessarily facts. It's a narrative to give an overview of the case. There has been no testimony yet about GZ's injuries. Here's an article reporting what his medical report showed.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...ds-light-injuries-trayvon/t/story?id=16353532

 

[Moonie]

Pure speculation on your part as there is no evidence to support that GZ even attempted to unlawfully detain TM. Although it doesn’t apply here, Florida law does allow for citizen arrest.

I do agree that GZ should have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch but I honestly don’t believe, given TM history and character, there would have been a different outcome.

When you cut through all the minutia, the bottom line is TM imitated the physical confrontation and GZ acted in self defense. And that is that.

MOO

GZ has a past that includes things that would also tarnish his character as well. You can't use one person's past and not the others. Neither one was perfect. Let's be fair.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

It's in the report that it was a closed fracture. I'm sure the defense is going to introduce it because they referenced it in opening. Are we going to say that is forged?

I never said anything about forged documents, but how could they tell a bone was broken without an x-ray?

 

[Karmady]

She could write it in cursive but not read it in cursive? I'm lost.

She can't read or write in cursive. Someone else wrote it for her and she was unable to read it herself.

 

[Nymeria]

I need to wrap my head around this.
The pic on the left is in police car before going to station, the pic on the right is AT the police station later.



How can his nose be SO jacked up in the pic on the left, and be normal except for a scratch on the right?
Presuming it was within a couple hours, I do NOT know the time frame as I do not know how long he was at the station before they took the picture. IIRC Ms. Smith said within 3-4 hours?

Worth noting the picture on the left was released by GZ representation in Dec. 2012- http://gillreport.com/2012/12/video-new-bloody-photo-of-george-zimmerman-released/

 

[SassyMom]

Wrong

The 911 guy DID say on the stand that they don't give commands for liability reasons. I think he said, 'We don't need you to do that' which is different than 'Don't do that"

 

[iluvmua]

I totally agree with the whole blaming the victim stuff. Here is my concern... if, according to RJ, TM was right by the back of dad's gf's townhouse how is it this confrontation took place 700ft away back towards where GZ's truck was?

not to mention, he was found north of where he was staying.

JMO

 

[eminent08]

George was never told any of that
Sean, the guy who was on the stand two days ago testified to that.

The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” in response to Zimmerman saying he was following him.

it doesn't matter if his nose was broken or not. legally all that matters is that he felt his life was in imminent danger.

IMO, no, it doesn't matter if his nose was broken.


Regarding imminent danger:
Turn the tables for an honest moment. In a world of serial predators, I pose a serious question: Would there be a “Stand Your Ground” defense if this were a 16 year old girl being pursued in the manner Trayvon was?

 

[m00c0w]

I never said anything about forged documents, but how could they tell a bone was broken without an x-ray?

Broken noses are routinely diagnosed without an x-ray.

It may be surprising to know that x-rays are not particularly helpful in diagnosing and treating broken noses. Also, many fractures do not need to be repaired but just need time to heal.​

http://ent.about.com/od/enttreatments/a/Treating-Broken-Noses.htm

 

[stum_ble]

<snipped>
Regarding imminent danger:
Turn the tables for an honest moment. In a world of serial predators, I pose a serious question: Would there be a “Stand Your Ground” defense if this were a 16 year old girl being pursued in the manner Trayvon was?

This is a very good question.

 

[cityslick]

Without an x-ray... He could claim it was knocked completely off his face. Means nothing without x-ray

He still had to be examined. Are you saying I can go to a doctors office and say my arm is broken but I don't want an xray and they'll put that I have a broken arm in my medical records? They just take your word for it?

 

[PaintingAnemone]

I'm not the one with issues as to how it's defined. I believe it's defined appropriately.

The definition you provided was this:

Pursue in order to catch or catch up with​

You have some examples of this definition. You have the synonyms of the word listed. These are not definitions. The only definition of the word in the predicate form that you have used is "Pursue in order to catch or catch up with".

If you cannot prove, with factual evidence, that he was attempting to catch or catch up with Martin, the entire premise is flawed. I can break this down into logical notation for you, but I believe that is entirely unnecessary as someone who is objective to this should be able to plainly see how using the definition you provided is a faulty premise.

The fact that you keep reducing the definition to one line points to you having a problem with how it is defined. That you keep trying to limit the commentary to that one point indicates that you are unable to argue against it on any other terms. The definition of the word is not the problem, nor is it a problem that it has been applied (quite correctly) to what GZ was doing. The problem is that you just don't seem to like it. I can't really help that.

 

[m00c0w]

Regarding imminent danger:
Turn the tables for an honest moment. In a world of serial predators, I pose a serious question: Would there be a “Stand Your Ground” defense if this were a 16 year old girl being pursued in the manner Trayvon was?

Considering that I do not believe that to be a threat of death or great bodily harm at that juncture (this is my opinion), she would have a duty to retreat under Florida law (this is fact).

 

[Horace Finklestein]

And me, makes three.

I expected the defense team to be much better prepared to bridge the considerable cultural gulf separating it from some of the prosecution witnesses, if only to be able to connect sufficiently to elicit the answers they want.

This could speak to ignorance, incompetence, or blind arrogance - perhaps reflecting their client's mindset, which could be what got him in this unfortunate situation.

I hope the Defendant mans up and gets up there to tell his version of the facts, so the Jury has a chance to compare and contrast...

Justice for Trayvon. Go Rachel, you're doing great sweetie.

Why should they have to dumb things down? The questions they are asking are not complicated and the 13 year old kid was fine with it. They can't accommodate dishonesty and seething anger any better than what they are imo.