17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #28

[grandmaj]

I disagree. If it was self defense, he has been a victim since day one.
No matter how he is looked at by others.

While it may be your opinion that he is a victim, which is fine, when George Zimmerman was arrested he no longer is a victim here on the forum for purposes of our Victim Friendly stance on sleuthing.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I disagree. If it was self defense, he has been a victim since day one.
No matter how he is looked at by others.

What if it wasn't self defense and a jury convicts him?

 

[Inabsentia]

IIRC the time stamp on the photo was 7:19 (and some seconds)

I have no idea who took the picture.
I don't know who allowed it.

It was pretty quick after the shot.

Maybe the person who took the picture was already at the scene and took the photo after LE got there but before the scene was cleared.

Why isn't any of this in the original police reports then? The original reports don't mention another person on scene, or Zimmerman being on the phone when law enforcement arrived. The responding officer's description of the scene conflicts with this photo imo. Once someone is taken into custody are they allowed to use their cell phones? Nothing about this photo makes sense. Moo

 

[SuziQ]

GZ tells LE that night on the phone that TM is in his late teens and now tells the parents he thought TM was closer to his age???? jmo

Yep. How sincere could GZ's apology be if he tells a lie while saying it? That's the most whacked apology I've heard in awhile.

 

[Concerned Papa]

The prosecution clearly KNOWS whether the victim was shot in the chest or in the back. There is no way in the world they would say he was shot in the chest if it was actually from the back. NO WAY. The ME, the homicide detectives, the state investigators and the prosecution team, ALL of them have seen the evidence and would know the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I tend to think more or less as you've stated is true.

BUT

Unless someone can explain something that I can't see, the same witness that we're supposed to believe as to the validity of this newest "picture" has clearly LIED about ever seeing GSR on TM's hoodie. IMO, that shoots his/her credibility all to heck.

 

[badme102]

His injuries don't show that he was the aggressor either.

You are absolutely right. I just wanted to put to rest that just because he did have injuries, albeit MINOR ones, it doesn't in any way, shape or form give him license to kill under self defense or SYG.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

You can say that without having any knowledge of what injuries Trayvon had to his body? The injuries don't look bad to me at all? I haven't see the photographic evidence or the medical documentation about George's nose yet, so I'll wait on that. His head injuries are not consistent with his head being banged repeatedly into the cement though?

MOO

Yes I can. I believe if TM was shot in the back that would have come out by now. At a certain point, I think we have to stop reaching to interpret everything in a way that condemns GZ. Of course his injury came from coming in contact with sidewalk/cement, where else would it have come from? There was a witness that corroborates that version of events. For the longest time we heard there were no injuries to GZ and the police were lying. Now that there is a close up of GZ bleeding, people are reaching to say he still wasn't attacked. Seems unrealistic imo.

 

[Gin]

Saw the photo. Right now, I have no reason to believe it is faked. Head wounds bleed like that, even scrapes. It does not show his head was bashed in, but it does show scrapes and bleeding. It's something.

IMO/JMO

Head scrapes, scatches bleed, nearly always. If they are very minor (not deep or very involved) they quit bleeding almost immediately. The way the EMT's treated Z is a great indicator that these were very minor boo-boos.
They were totally done evaluating him in minutes. He didn't bleed in the police car, and he was not bleeding at the station.

The really good news in this? IMO this photo (if real) of couple of minor shallow scrapes is conclusive evidence that a pulpy mooshy, catastrophic head bashing (seconds from permanent brain injury) never occurred.

 

[csziggy]

I have posted many comments and given my trained eye opinion of head injuries..and for me in a nutshell..this is minor..only one laceration about inch and half..the other on top is a punctate wound..No surrounding tissue damages..NOPE no multiple head bashing there!! In my lowly visual assessment..

My cat did more damage to me yesterday when he attacked my arm, gouged it in two spots and put a two inch scratch on my elbow! The scratch on my elbow was much more evident than any damage in that picture of GZ's head and it bled more. (I've got a semi-feral cat who regularly attacks me, but I love him anyway.)

Both times I've had my head bashed against something (by horses), the injury was low on my skull, under the big "bump" at the back of the head, above the nape of the neck. They certainly were not on the top of the head where the picture shows GZ bleeding. I have had cuts up in that area, from hitting my head when I didn't duck low enough or raised my head too soon when walking under a low branch or opening.

Just saying, so IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

While it may be your opinion that he is a victim, which is fine, when George Zimmerman was arrested he no longer is a victim here on the forum for purposes of our Victim Friendly stance on sleuthing.

But I'm not sleuthing.
I gave an opinion that IF this was self defense, GZ is a victim.
I said if because we don't know yet.

I never claimed he IS a victim.

 

[katydid23]

Sometimes, the TH's, I mean attorney's on HLN will just say "stuff". We have seen it time and time again, and they have been proven wrong, time and time again. It was a bond hearing, nothing more, nothing less.

Even if this particular investigator didn't have knowledge of these things today, doesn't mean they don't exist. The questions could have been asked in a manner in which these were the only answers he could give at the time.

Only time will tell.

But a bond hearing is an important thing. The state puts forth it's reasons for placing a million dollar bond on it's prisoner. And they are charged by the state with putting forth it's evidentiary reasons for that amount of bond. So they would send an investigator that can answer that question.

All of the investigators have the same information. They are constantly updated and clued in and cc'ed. Believe me, if they had evidence to prove that GZ swung first, this investigator would have known. AND he would be legally expected to disclose it under oath during a bond hearing. It goes to evidence of the need for the high bond.

 

[cityslick]

The prosecution clearly KNOWS whether the victim was shot in the chest or in the back. There is no way in the world they would say he was shot in the chest if it was actually from the back. NO WAY. The ME, the homicide detectives, the state investigators and the prosecution team, ALL of them have seen the evidence and would know the difference.

The fact that two different sources (the detective and the charging affidavit) states he was shot in the chest makes me believe he was shot in the chest.

MOM asked the Det., was TM shot in the chest. The Det. said yes. If that information was in question or simply not true, he should not have answered in the affirmative like that.

The question should be more if whoever took that photo really saw powder and how credible that is.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

What if it wasn't self defense and a jury convicts him?

Then he most certainly is a convicted murderer.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Caught in the door again.

Bringing over Donjeta's post from the last thread:



BBM

Isn't that just the ultimate irony!! :furious:

Irony, yes. But he killed somebody, Trayvon didn't.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Yes I can. I believe if TM was shot in the back that would have come out by now. At a certain point, I think we have to stop reaching to interpret everything in a way that condemns GZ. Of course his injury came from coming in contact with sidewalk/cement, where else would it have come from? There was a witness that corroborates that version of events. For the longest time we heard there were no injuries to GZ and the police were lying. Now that there is a close up of GZ bleeding, people are reaching to say he still wasn't attacked. Seems unrealistic imo.

I don't think he was attacked? I think he reached for the gun and that is when Trayvon reacted. The moment George went for his gun, his self-defense story is useless. You can not confront someone in a threatening manner by reaching for your gun and expect to get away with murder just because someone defended themselves. Trayvon was defending himself. Not George.

IMO, Trayvon did not "attack" George. I believe he was fighting to save his life and lost.

MOO

 

[dsntslp]

Nope. I've brought this up here before. I've shot hundreds of rounds at one time and no one would have been any the wiser based on appearance alone.

Thanks! I thought I missed something important or needed to pay more attention to my clothing after I left the range, lol.

Maybe, whoever said that about the GSR really meant blood spatter?

 

[LynnM]

Yes I can. I believe if TM was shot in the back that would have come out by now. At a certain point, I think we have to stop reaching to interpret everything in a way that condemns GZ. Of course his injury came from coming in contact with sidewalk/cement, where else would it have come from? There was a witness that corroborates that version of events. For the longest time we heard there were no injuries to GZ and the police were lying. Now that there is a close up of GZ bleeding, people are reaching to say he still wasn't attacked. Seems unrealistic imo.

I have always said that I didn't doubt that GZ got some cuts, scrapes, or bruises in the scuffle. What I doubted and still doubt is that his injuries were serious.

I am unaware of any witness who corroborates GZ's statement that his head came into contact with the sidewalk. One witness said they were at least four feet from the sidewalk when he saw them on the ground. Do you have a link?

 

[csziggy]

Well let me tell you what I'm thinking. And maybe it isn't a problem. But if a defendant leaves the state where a bail bondsman is licensed, does a bail bondsman lose the right to pull the bond because of jurisdictional issues.

In other words, what if GZ was allowed to leave the state and a bail bondsman didn't know where he is, what then? I would think that a bail bondsman licensed in FL has no jurisdiction in another state unless he/she is also licensed there. So if George were to commit some crime in another state and the bondsman wanted to surrender him could he?

Good questions - I guess we now need a bail expert to answer them? :juggle:

 

[katydid23]

Don't get me wrong, I tend to think more or less as you've stated is true.

BUT

Unless someone can explain something that I can't see, the same witness that we're supposed to believe as to the validity of this newest "picture" has clearly LIED about ever seeing GSR on TM's hoodie. IMO, that shoots his/her credibility all to heck.

BBM
OR they were mistaken when they said it was GSR. It could have been any number of things, and they labelled it incorrectly. It does not mean they lied or anything nefarious.

 

[cityslick]

IMO/JMO

Head scrapes, scatches bleed, nearly always. If they are very minor (not deep or very involved) they quit bleeding almost immediately. The way the EMT's treated Z is a great indicator that these were very minor boo-boos.
They were totally done evaluating him in minutes. He didn't bleed in the police car, and he was not bleeding at the station.

The really good news in this? IMO this photo (if real) of couple of minor shallow scrapes is conclusive evidence that a pulpy mooshy, catastrophic head bashing (seconds from permanent brain injury) never occurred.

BBM

True, but if the injuries are true it means there really was a struggle. I don't know if everyone has acknowledged that yet.