George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

[vlpate]

Okay, there were injuries. They existed. Do you realize how many people saw GZ the night this happened? As evidence comes in, stories are told, not one single person has said they saw GZ with no injuries. This guy was in a police station, and not one single individual has testified or affidavited, or told the Enquirer that they saw him with zero injuries. Doesn't that make you think? As to their severity, their existence proves contact. Because legally, the first law breaker is responsible. The first contact is responsible. Some say GZ tried to detain him. Show evidence of that? I would like to see it, it would directly influence my opinion. That would make him, in my opinion, guilty of manslaughter for provoking the fight that lead to death. Is there anything to back up that conclusion in regards to injuries?

Isn't that the truth, they'd have been all over a blatant lie by the SPD, EMT, CSI, and other witnesses and GZ.

 

[vlpate]

Not to make light of the conversation, but one year my husband gave me a cold Colt .38 Detective Special for Valentines day. The next year I got Hydro-shok bullets. One friend from Virginia said well it is Texas so I guess it must be true love.

I was "uncomfortable" when Texas made carrying a concealed weapon legal because of my fear that many would use it as an excuse to justify their own bad behavior, poor judgement and impulse control.

I would not go after someone with a gun, but if they come after my children or broke into my home to harm us, then I would use deadly force.

I would not shoot to kill if they were stealing something. Those things can be replaced (isn't that what I pay insurance for?) and if the thief stopped when he saw my weapon then to me the threat is over and I call the police.

We only have Zimmerman's account of him pulling his weapon after being attacked, but what if he did already had it out to use to intimidate Trayvon?

I think George Zimmerman realized just how badly he screwed up when he shot Trayvon Martin and has been in the cover his mode since.

IMO, he would have told his g/f the guy following him had a gun. There was no time between the nose punch and the phone disconnecting for GZ to intimidate him with the gun. JMO

 

[Indy Anna]

IMO, he would have told his g/f the guy following him had a gun. There was no time between the nose punch and the phone disconnecting for GZ to intimidate him with the gun. JMO

Hmmm...JMO, but I can't see TM just standing there giving his gf the play-by-play of events on his cell phone while the strange man who has been trailing him pulls out a gun. TM and gf's telephone conversation ended abruptly only seconds before the gunshot. We don't know that TM didn't punch GZ in response to the gun. His only options would be to run, stand frozen in place, or fight back. It would be rather foolish to run from someone who is pointing a gun at you. I don't know anyone fast enough to outrun a bullet.

 

[vlpate]

Hmmm...JMO, but I can't see TM just standing there giving his gf the play-by-play of events on his cell phone while the strange man who has been trailing him pulls out a gun. TM and gf's telephone conversation ended abruptly only seconds before the gunshot. We don't know that TM didn't punch GZ in response to the gun. His only options would be to run, stand frozen in place, or fight back. It would be rather foolish to run from someone who is pointing a gun at you. I don't know anyone fast enough to outrun a bullet.

IMO it would be fatal to punch someone holding a gun on you. She heard "why are you following me", and "what are you doing around here", and then the phone went dead. I would have said, "he has a gun."

Not to mention, I doubt, after GZ was on the ground, he would have missed his chance to take the shot. JMO

 

[Indy Anna]

Some posters here have already mentioned the multitude of blood vessels in the head. Over a year ago, my sister fell backwards while going up some steps and hit her head on the sidewalk. After trying unsuccessfully to stop the bleeding for at least an hour, she finally called her bf, who took her to ER where she got stitches and a CT scan (risk of bleeding/blot clot in brain) and was admitted overnight for observation. Once, I suffered a blow to the nose (it was broken) and bled profusely. I was taken to urgent care, but they couldn't stop the bleeding so sent me to ER. When I later went to pick up a prescription (antibiotic) at the pharmacy, I realized that blood was splattered all over my clothes.

I don't doubt that GZ suffered some injuries from his scuffle with TM, and I know that the amount of bleeding depends on the thickness of the blood, but it is fact that it takes more than a few minutes to stop the bleeding from a serious head wound [there was also a time when my sister and I fell backwards off a porch swing onto a concrete porch when we were little kids. We both had to be taken to ER to stop the bleeding and get stitches - my sister on her head and me on my lip.]

TM was carrying a can of iced tea, a bag of Skittles, and a cell phone when GZ approached him. Maybe he put the bag of Skittles in his pocket, but he was talking on the phone at the time and had a can of iced tea, I presume, in the other hand. I remember reading that these items were found next him on the ground. So, I have a hard time believing that TM threw these items on the ground before pouncing on GZ as he was returning to his vehicle, spinning him around and punching him in the face.

I find the SYG law especially disturbing because most people (on other websites) who cite it as a defense in this case (and other cases, for that matter) suggest that the person carrying a gun is always justified. I.e., the idea that even if the person carrying the gun is the initiator of aggression, he/she should be absolved of guilt if the victim fights back. By the same logic, a rapist who attacks a woman as she walks down the street is justified in shooting her if she tries to fight him off. We don't know that GZ wasn't the aggressor in this case. If the testimony of TM's gf is correct, TM did attempt to avoid a confrontation with GZ. It was GZ who pursued TM.

 

[Indy Anna]

IMO it would be fatal to punch someone holding a gun on you. She heard "why are you following me", and "what are you doing around here", and then the phone went dead. I would have said, "he has a gun."

Not to mention, I doubt, after GZ was on the ground, he would have missed his chance to take the shot. JMO

BBM And, in this case, it was fatal. My point is, there aren't a lot of options when you're looking down the barrel of a gun. It's fight or flight. GZ acknowledged that TM was trying to get the gun away from him. I think the logical thing to do, especially for someone who is physically capable, is to try to disarm the person perceived as a threat.

 

[vlpate]

BBM And, in this case, it was fatal. My point is, there aren't a lot of options when you're looking down the barrel of a gun. It's fight or flight. GZ acknowledged that TM was trying to get the gun away from him. I think the logical thing to do, especially for someone who is physically capable, is to try to disarm the person perceived as a threat.

To be clear, is it your belief that because TM was physically capable of taking GZ's gun away, that it was the logical thing to do? TIA

 

[Indy Anna]

To be clear, is it your belief that because TM was physically capable of taking GZ's gun away, that it was the logical thing to do? TIA

I can imagine someone under these circumstances trying to wrestle the gun away. What do they have to lose if they believe their life is being threatened and the alternatives could result in their death? There have been cases in which people chose to fight off an attacker rather than wait and see what would happen next, and they were successful at disabling and disarming the attacker.

 

[Ambrosia]

Watch a movie with police or bouncers (See GZ's favs) in it and you may see how they go about it. To gain an advantage it's 'Up against the wall' or 'turn around.' Or a hand on the shoulder to help you do just that. Then it's 'feel time' in the pockets or whatever. This will cause a certain amount of outrage from a person who feels innocent as being accosted by a stranger, and he may react right off the bat. Thus being in a position that GZ would want to keep so he would be in control. Any resistance and the next step for GZ would be to use his position as an advantage to make the next move. One technique is used by many a BOUNCER or NIGHTCLUB DOORMEN. It is used at close range and the opponents chance of escape is about zero. It starts out by standing behind your opponent and planting an arm around his throat. BUT I feel that TM may have responded by using his tall size as an advantage, by pushing backward with his head as well as his legs. This would throw GZ off balance and force him backward also. TM could also at that point given GZ a headbutt in the nose. Butt who nose? Now there seem to be short trees with some very low branches at the T. In fact at that very spot that could have caused those scratch like? injuries to the back of GZ's head. Thus those injuries to Zimmerman's head could have been caused by himself in his attempt to use this BOUNCER technique on Martin and failing badly.

 

[Ambrosia]

And I think something like that would have really hurt GZ in more ways than one.

 

[LambChop]

Some posters here have already mentioned the multitude of blood vessels in the head. Over a year ago, my sister fell backwards while going up some steps and hit her head on the sidewalk. After trying unsuccessfully to stop the bleeding for at least an hour, she finally called her bf, who took her to ER where she got stitches and a CT scan (risk of bleeding/blot clot in brain) and was admitted overnight for observation. Once, I suffered a blow to the nose (it was broken) and bled profusely. I was taken to urgent care, but they couldn't stop the bleeding so sent me to ER. When I later went to pick up a prescription (antibiotic) at the pharmacy, I realized that blood was splattered all over my clothes.

I don't doubt that GZ suffered some injuries from his scuffle with TM, and I know that the amount of bleeding depends on the thickness of the blood, but it is fact that it takes more than a few minutes to stop the bleeding from a serious head wound [there was also a time when my sister and I fell backwards off a porch swing onto a concrete porch when we were little kids. We both had to be taken to ER to stop the bleeding and get stitches - my sister on her head and me on my lip.]

TM was carrying a can of iced tea, a bag of Skittles, and a cell phone when GZ approached him. Maybe he put the bag of Skittles in his pocket, but he was talking on the phone at the time and had a can of iced tea, I presume, in the other hand. I remember reading that these items were found next him on the ground. So, I have a hard time believing that TM threw these items on the ground before pouncing on GZ as he was returning to his vehicle, spinning him around and punching him in the face.

I find the SYG law especially disturbing because most people (on other websites) who cite it as a defense in this case (and other cases, for that matter) suggest that the person carrying a gun is always justified. I.e., the idea that even if the person carrying the gun is the initiator of aggression, he/she should be absolved of guilt if the victim fights back. By the same logic, a rapist who attacks a woman as she walks down the street is justified in shooting her if she tries to fight him off. We don't know that GZ wasn't the aggressor in this case. If the testimony of TM's gf is correct, TM did attempt to avoid a confrontation with GZ. It was GZ who pursued TM.

The Skittles and Ice Tea were in his pocket.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...hbrhood-watch-death-trayvon-martin/53655188/1

 

[Emeralgem]

Watch a movie with police or bouncers (See GZ's favs) in it and you may see how they go about it. To gain an advantage it's 'Up against the wall' or 'turn around.' Or a hand on the shoulder to help you do just that. Then it's 'feel time' in the pockets or whatever. This will cause a certain amount of outrage from a person who feels innocent as being accosted by a stranger, and he may react right off the bat. Thus being in a position that GZ would want to keep so he would be in control. Any resistance and the next step for GZ would be to use his position as an advantage to make the next move. One technique is used by many a BOUNCER or NIGHTCLUB DOORMEN. It is used at close range and the opponents chance of escape is about zero. It starts out by standing behind your opponent and planting an arm around his throat. BUT I feel that TM may have responded by using his tall size as an advantage, by pushing backward with his head as well as his legs. This would throw GZ off balance and force him backward also. TM could also at that point given GZ a headbutt in the nose. Butt who nose? Now there seem to be short trees with some very low branches at the T. In fact at that very spot that could have caused those scratch like? injuries to the back of GZ's head. Thus those injuries to Zimmerman's head could have been caused by himself in his attempt to use this BOUNCER technique on Martin and failing badly.

BBM IMHO.. i've thought for sometime now the injuries, especially that small gouge on GZ's head was caused by a tree branch or a bush...JMHO

 

[Emeralgem]

And I think something like that would have really hurt GZ in more ways than one.

IMHO.. His EGO was hurt...JMHO

 

[FULTON]

With the news intentionally distorting the evidence we see, it's no wonder some of us are confused. I have seen a viedo of GZ with a red news banner over his head and the newsperson blurting out" I cant see any injuries". The other reporter who edited the phone calls from GZ to the police to make them seem racist.(He has since been fired) What else has the media let loose to sway our views. They should all be charged with obstruction. The scenerio that GZ gave the day of the incident was suported by witnesses and the police. GZ statements held up thats why no arrest was made. Just because something happens you dont need to have an arrest. It's called probable cause.It was disigned to protect the innocent from undo litigation and prison time. In this case that has gone out the window to run away emotions.The injuries to GZ clealy support what he and others saw. Its a shame an innocent man doing his job as neighborhood watch challanging strangers is being put thru this railroading.

 

[Bottle Cap]

You wouldn't know if they have a concealed weapon, so I'm not sure what is meant by "seeing someone with a weapon". If they are pulling a gun on you, then heck yeah, I think that goes without saying you should probably not tick them off, lol. My post was more just information about hollow-point bullets.



Agreed.

And in this instance, should you tick them off and they shoot you, who is the criminal?

 

[Indy Anna]

The Skittles and Ice Tea were in his pocket.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...hbrhood-watch-death-trayvon-martin/53655188/1

I only see the Skittles mentioned in that article. The only article I've found that even hints at where he carried the iced tea is in this article: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/320...martin-case-skittles-arizona-iced-florida.htm
It says that the Skittles and iced tea were found on Trayvon after he was pronounced dead. So, you are probably right. His pockets would have been rather bulky, then. I just can't envision the kid pouncing on a man who was walking away from him while he had a cell phone in his hands and bulky items in his pockets.

When I was in college, a teenager snatched my purse while I was walking home from the store with a large sack in my arms. At one point, I was able to grab the thief by his jacket and almost pull him to the ground, but he pulled away. Afterwards, I realized that if I had only dropped the sack in my arms, I may have been able to kick the thief and get my purse back. I couldn't think of anything in the sack that could have broken if I dropped it on the ground, but the thought impressed me that I was protective of my newly purchased goods. If TM didn't feel threatened by GZ, wouldn't his main concern have been to get back safely to his dad's gf's house with the items he'd bought intact?

Plus, TM's gf heard GZ ask Trayvon "what are you doing here?" right before the phone fell. Even if that's when TM struck GZ, it contradicts GZ's account that he was returning to his vehicle when TM attacked him.

 

[elementary]

And in this instance, should you tick them off and they shoot you, who is the criminal?

I believe, because of the anguished yell for help at the end, that Trayvon saw the gun. That Zimmerman showed the gun before Trayvon was murdered. That perhaps he tried to deflect it. But mainly that
Trayvon knew that Zimmerman was going to kill him.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I only see the Skittles mentioned in that article. The only article I've found that even hints at where he carried the iced tea is in this article: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/320...martin-case-skittles-arizona-iced-florida.htm
It says that the Skittles and iced tea were found on Trayvon after he was pronounced dead. So, you are probably right. His pockets would have been rather bulky, then. I just can't envision the kid pouncing on a man who was walking away from him while he had a cell phone in his hands and bulky items in his pockets.

When I was in college, a teenager snatched my purse while I was walking home from the store with a large sack in my arms. At one point, I was able to grab the thief by his jacket and almost pull him to the ground, but he pulled away. Afterwards, I realized that if I had only dropped the sack in my arms, I may have been able to kick the thief and get my purse back. I couldn't think of anything in the sack that could have broken if I dropped it on the ground, but the thought impressed me that I was protective of my newly purchased goods. If TM didn't feel threatened by GZ, wouldn't his main concern have been to get back safely to his dad's gf's house with the items he'd bought intact?

Plus, TM's gf heard GZ ask Trayvon "what are you doing here?" right before the phone fell. Even if that's when TM struck GZ, it contradicts GZ's account that he was returning to his vehicle when TM attacked him.

Not necessarily. I remember that she stated Mr. Martin first asked "Why are you following me?" If so it's understandable that Mr. Zimmerman could have turned around when he was asked that question. Without a recording of the call we can only go on her words.

 

[Emeralgem]

Not necessarily. I remember that she stated Mr. Martin first asked "Why are you following me?" If so it's understandable that Mr. Zimmerman could have turned around when he was asked that question. Without a recording of the call we can only go on her words.

BBM..IMHO...I'm more inclined to believe GZ appeared out of no where after TM thought he had lost his stalker and as GZ was approaching TM, thats when he asked GZ .."WHY are you following me?" I'll never believe GZ abandoned the hunt, was headed back to his car and TM then began to follow GZ...JMHO..

 

[AJ Noiter]

BBM..IMHO...I'm more inclined to believe GZ appeared out of no where after TM thought he had lost his stalker and as GZ was approaching TM, thats when he asked GZ .."WHY are you following me?" I'll never believe GZ abandoned the hunt, was headed back to his car and TM then began to follow GZ...JMHO..

I do apologize, I wasn't basing that on my own opinion of the call as a regular person viewing the forums, more of a defense lawyer knowing that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Given the statement made, I see no proof of who confronted who. Given that Detective Gilbreath stated the same at the bail hearing it's not evidence for the prosecution.

My opinion is this:

I do not think they'll call her to testify. Something about hearsay and the fact that what she has said doesn't help the prosecution makes me think it's a waste of time to even worry about what she's said. This prosecution has made a fool of me before though, so I may eat my words.