George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Peach]

Gee, you mean that, in fact, paramedics CAN'T force you to go to the hospital? Hmm, where have I heard THAT before?

The REAL doctor says he was injured: you're NOT a doctor. You're just Peach, a fucking moron on the Internet.

You are repeating yourself.

Florida Statutes 394.463. Have someone read it to you.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Actually, YOU repeated me. But let's just examine which one of us can read, and which one of us is the personification of "women's brains are too weak to handle education", shall we?

394.463 Involuntary examination.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:
(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or
2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and
(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or
2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior.

Okay, well, George Zimmerman has never been diagnosed with mental illness, nor is there any reason to believe that he exhibited any signs or symptoms of mental illness that night, so not a word of the above applies to his case.

(2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.—
(a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means:
1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The order of the court shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. No fee shall be charged for the filing of an order under this subsection. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this order must send a copy of the order to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day. The order shall be valid only until executed or, if not executed, for the period specified in the order itself. If no time limit is specified in the order, the order shall be valid for 7 days after the date that the order was signed.
2. A law enforcement officer shall take a person who appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination into custody and deliver the person or have him or her delivered to the nearest receiving facility for examination. The officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody, and the report shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this report must send a copy of the report to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
3. A physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, or clinical social worker may execute a certificate stating that he or she has examined a person within the preceding 48 hours and finds that the person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination and stating the observations upon which that conclusion is based. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer shall take the person named in the certificate into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The law enforcement officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody. The report and certificate shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this certificate must send a copy of the certificate to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
(b) A person shall not be removed from any program or residential placement licensed under chapter 400 or chapter 429 and transported to a receiving facility for involuntary examination unless an ex parte order, a professional certificate, or a law enforcement officer’s report is first prepared. If the condition of the person is such that preparation of a law enforcement officer’s report is not practicable before removal, the report shall be completed as soon as possible after removal, but in any case before the person is transported to a receiving facility. A receiving facility admitting a person for involuntary examination who is not accompanied by the required ex parte order, professional certificate, or law enforcement officer’s report shall notify the Agency for Health Care Administration of such admission by certified mail no later than the next working day. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply when transportation is provided by the patient’s family or guardian.
(c) A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may serve and execute such order on any day of the week, at any time of the day or night.
(d) A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may use such reasonable physical force as is necessary to gain entry to the premises, and any dwellings, buildings, or other structures located on the premises, and to take custody of the person who is the subject of the ex parte order.
(e) The Agency for Health Care Administration shall receive and maintain the copies of ex parte orders, involuntary outpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.4655, involuntary inpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.467, professional certificates, and law enforcement officers’ reports. These documents shall be considered part of the clinical record, governed by the provisions of s. 394.4615. The agency shall prepare annual reports analyzing the data obtained from these documents, without information identifying patients, and shall provide copies of reports to the department, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(f) A patient shall be examined by a physician or clinical psychologist at a receiving facility without unnecessary delay and may, upon the order of a physician, be given emergency treatment if it is determined that such treatment is necessary for the safety of the patient or others. The patient may not be released by the receiving facility or its contractor without the documented approval of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, or, if the receiving facility is a hospital, the release may also be approved by an attending emergency department physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders and after completion of an involuntary examination pursuant to this subsection. However, a patient may not be held in a receiving facility for involuntary examination longer than 72 hours.
(g) A person for whom an involuntary examination has been initiated who is being evaluated or treated at a hospital for an emergency medical condition specified in s. 395.002 must be examined by a receiving facility within 72 hours. The 72-hour period begins when the patient arrives at the hospital and ceases when the attending physician documents that the patient has an emergency medical condition. If the patient is examined at a hospital providing emergency medical services by a professional qualified to perform an involuntary examination and is found as a result of that examination not to meet the criteria for involuntary outpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.4655(1) or involuntary inpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.467(1), the patient may be offered voluntary placement, if appropriate, or released directly from the hospital providing emergency medical services. The finding by the professional that the patient has been examined and does not meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement or involuntary outpatient placement must be entered into the patient’s clinical record. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prevent a hospital providing emergency medical services from appropriately transferring a patient to another hospital prior to stabilization, provided the requirements of s. 395.1041(3)(c) have been met.
(h) One of the following must occur within 12 hours after the patient’s attending physician documents that the patient’s medical condition has stabilized or that an emergency medical condition does not exist:
1. The patient must be examined by a designated receiving facility and released; or
2. The patient must be transferred to a designated receiving facility in which appropriate medical treatment is available. However, the receiving facility must be notified of the transfer within 2 hours after the patient’s condition has been stabilized or after determination that an emergency medical condition does not exist.
(i) Within the 72-hour examination period or, if the 72 hours ends on a weekend or holiday, no later than the next working day thereafter, one of the following actions must be taken, based on the individual needs of the patient:
1. The patient shall be released, unless he or she is charged with a crime, in which case the patient shall be returned to the custody of a law enforcement officer;
2. The patient shall be released, subject to the provisions of subparagraph 1., for voluntary outpatient treatment;
3. The patient, unless he or she is charged with a crime, shall be asked to give express and informed consent to placement as a voluntary patient, and, if such consent is given, the patient shall be admitted as a voluntary patient; or
4. A petition for involuntary placement shall be filed in the circuit court when outpatient or inpatient treatment is deemed necessary. When inpatient treatment is deemed necessary, the least restrictive treatment consistent with the optimum improvement of the patient’s condition shall be made available. When a petition is to be filed for involuntary outpatient placement, it shall be filed by one of the petitioners specified in s. 394.4655(3)(a). A petition for involuntary inpatient placement shall be filed by the facility administrator.
(3) NOTICE OF RELEASE.—Notice of the release shall be given to the patient’s guardian or representative, to any person who executed a certificate admitting the patient to the receiving facility, and to any court which ordered the patient’s evaluation.

All of this refers to a court-ordered examination for purposes of evidence in a case already in progress, so it ALSO has nothing to do with George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin.

So, as we have seen, there is no provision in the law for paramedics to force anyone - barring evidence of mental illness - to go to the hospital against his will . . . just like I said.

Way to publicly make a fool of yourself. Brava!

Refusing medical treatment is grounds for a 72 hour old(.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are repeating yourself.

Florida Statutes 394.463. Have someone read it to you.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Actually, YOU repeated me. But let's just examine which one of us can read, and which one of us is the personification of "women's brains are too weak to handle education", shall we?

394.463 Involuntary examination.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:
(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or
2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and
(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or
2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior.

Okay, well, George Zimmerman has never been diagnosed with mental illness, nor is there any reason to believe that he exhibited any signs or symptoms of mental illness that night, so not a word of the above applies to his case.

(2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.—
(a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means:
1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The order of the court shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. No fee shall be charged for the filing of an order under this subsection. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this order must send a copy of the order to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day. The order shall be valid only until executed or, if not executed, for the period specified in the order itself. If no time limit is specified in the order, the order shall be valid for 7 days after the date that the order was signed.
2. A law enforcement officer shall take a person who appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination into custody and deliver the person or have him or her delivered to the nearest receiving facility for examination. The officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody, and the report shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this report must send a copy of the report to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
3. A physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, or clinical social worker may execute a certificate stating that he or she has examined a person within the preceding 48 hours and finds that the person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination and stating the observations upon which that conclusion is based. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer shall take the person named in the certificate into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The law enforcement officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody. The report and certificate shall be made a part of the patient’s clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this certificate must send a copy of the certificate to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
(b) A person shall not be removed from any program or residential placement licensed under chapter 400 or chapter 429 and transported to a receiving facility for involuntary examination unless an ex parte order, a professional certificate, or a law enforcement officer’s report is first prepared. If the condition of the person is such that preparation of a law enforcement officer’s report is not practicable before removal, the report shall be completed as soon as possible after removal, but in any case before the person is transported to a receiving facility. A receiving facility admitting a person for involuntary examination who is not accompanied by the required ex parte order, professional certificate, or law enforcement officer’s report shall notify the Agency for Health Care Administration of such admission by certified mail no later than the next working day. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply when transportation is provided by the patient’s family or guardian.
(c) A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may serve and execute such order on any day of the week, at any time of the day or night.
(d) A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may use such reasonable physical force as is necessary to gain entry to the premises, and any dwellings, buildings, or other structures located on the premises, and to take custody of the person who is the subject of the ex parte order.
(e) The Agency for Health Care Administration shall receive and maintain the copies of ex parte orders, involuntary outpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.4655, involuntary inpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.467, professional certificates, and law enforcement officers’ reports. These documents shall be considered part of the clinical record, governed by the provisions of s. 394.4615. The agency shall prepare annual reports analyzing the data obtained from these documents, without information identifying patients, and shall provide copies of reports to the department, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(f) A patient shall be examined by a physician or clinical psychologist at a receiving facility without unnecessary delay and may, upon the order of a physician, be given emergency treatment if it is determined that such treatment is necessary for the safety of the patient or others. The patient may not be released by the receiving facility or its contractor without the documented approval of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, or, if the receiving facility is a hospital, the release may also be approved by an attending emergency department physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders and after completion of an involuntary examination pursuant to this subsection. However, a patient may not be held in a receiving facility for involuntary examination longer than 72 hours.
(g) A person for whom an involuntary examination has been initiated who is being evaluated or treated at a hospital for an emergency medical condition specified in s. 395.002 must be examined by a receiving facility within 72 hours. The 72-hour period begins when the patient arrives at the hospital and ceases when the attending physician documents that the patient has an emergency medical condition. If the patient is examined at a hospital providing emergency medical services by a professional qualified to perform an involuntary examination and is found as a result of that examination not to meet the criteria for involuntary outpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.4655(1) or involuntary inpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.467(1), the patient may be offered voluntary placement, if appropriate, or released directly from the hospital providing emergency medical services. The finding by the professional that the patient has been examined and does not meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement or involuntary outpatient placement must be entered into the patient’s clinical record. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prevent a hospital providing emergency medical services from appropriately transferring a patient to another hospital prior to stabilization, provided the requirements of s. 395.1041(3)(c) have been met.
(h) One of the following must occur within 12 hours after the patient’s attending physician documents that the patient’s medical condition has stabilized or that an emergency medical condition does not exist:
1. The patient must be examined by a designated receiving facility and released; or
2. The patient must be transferred to a designated receiving facility in which appropriate medical treatment is available. However, the receiving facility must be notified of the transfer within 2 hours after the patient’s condition has been stabilized or after determination that an emergency medical condition does not exist.
(i) Within the 72-hour examination period or, if the 72 hours ends on a weekend or holiday, no later than the next working day thereafter, one of the following actions must be taken, based on the individual needs of the patient:
1. The patient shall be released, unless he or she is charged with a crime, in which case the patient shall be returned to the custody of a law enforcement officer;
2. The patient shall be released, subject to the provisions of subparagraph 1., for voluntary outpatient treatment;
3. The patient, unless he or she is charged with a crime, shall be asked to give express and informed consent to placement as a voluntary patient, and, if such consent is given, the patient shall be admitted as a voluntary patient; or
4. A petition for involuntary placement shall be filed in the circuit court when outpatient or inpatient treatment is deemed necessary. When inpatient treatment is deemed necessary, the least restrictive treatment consistent with the optimum improvement of the patient’s condition shall be made available. When a petition is to be filed for involuntary outpatient placement, it shall be filed by one of the petitioners specified in s. 394.4655(3)(a). A petition for involuntary inpatient placement shall be filed by the facility administrator.
(3) NOTICE OF RELEASE.—Notice of the release shall be given to the patient’s guardian or representative, to any person who executed a certificate admitting the patient to the receiving facility, and to any court which ordered the patient’s evaluation.

All of this refers to a court-ordered examination for purposes of evidence in a case already in progress, so it ALSO has nothing to do with George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin.

So, as we have seen, there is no provision in the law for paramedics to force anyone - barring evidence of mental illness - to go to the hospital against his will . . . just like I said.

Way to publicly make a fool of yourself. Brava!

Refusing medical treatment is grounds for a 72 hour old(.)

NOW what the hell are you babbling about?

 

[Peach]

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)

 

[Peach]

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

 

[Liability]

C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.

I would not recommend that you actually try it, but if you are ever in the position of having the back of your head bashed into the concrete (suffering ONLY gashes to your skull), I'm sure IN THAT MOMENT you will be calm and objective and "see" that nobody is trying to kill you or in the process of trying to cause you great bodily harm. Nah.

Yes. Now that I think about it, I'm SURE that's how it works.

The gashes do not appear when he walked in the police station; perhaps some will be manufactured. The lack of serious injuries does not negate self defense. But the constant drone of the Z zombies about how seriously injured he was raises questions.

(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs before being taken into the police precinct? Why yes. Yes he was:

Later in the recorded interview with investigators, the responder said it appeared that the “nose was swollen and that there were abrasions on his cheeks and face.”

The responders differ on the wound or wounds to the back of the head, but both agreed there was at least one laceration. Zimmerman told police he scuffled with Martin, who banged Zimmerman's head on the ground.

One responder said there was a “laceration at least an inch by a half-inch wide.”

“There were two lacerations at the back of his head, one deeper than the other,” another responder said during her interview. “We cleaned him up and got them to stop bleeding.”

She said Zimmerman complained of feeling dizzy at one point and seemed impaired. Both responders said they thought police would take Zimmerman to a hospital for stitches to his head.

Special prosecutor Angela B. Corey authorized the creation of a website for access to the dozens of CDs of information collected in the wake of Martin’s death. The released documents include reports from five Sanford, Fla., police investigators and recorded statements from about two dozen witnesses. There are also photographs from that night.

excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene. I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit? This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point. I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were." The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING even if it later turned out to be worth less concern.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)

By all means, feel free to point out where in your statute, which deals exclusively with people with mental illnesses and people whose court cases are already in progress, ANYONE had the right to force George Zimmerman to go to the hospital that night. Let's see the quote highlighted, please, because even YOU are not stupid enough to think I'm going to accept it just because you say it's there. And I don't care fuck-all for your little anecdote, so cite the law, or shut your hole.

 

[beagle9]

"Felony assaulter." You'll need to prove that assertion.

YOU demanding proof of an assertion is just about the funniest thing I've seen today. I knew you were a hypocritical imbecile, but you must actually be taking lessons and practicing at it.

Well, if you insist. It is kind of a slow day today. And lord knows you could use some sweetening up.

Original Recipe Yield 3 -1/2 dozen
Ingredients

1 (16 ounce) package OREO Chocolate Sandwich Cookies, divided
1 (8 ounce) package PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
2 (8 ounce) packages BAKER'S Semi-Sweet Baking Chocolate, melted
Directions

Crush 9 of the cookies to fine crumbs in food processor; reserve for later use. (Cookies can also be finely crushed in a resealable plastic bag using a rolling pin.) Crush remaining 36 cookies to fine crumbs; place in medium bowl. Add cream cheese; mix until well blended. Roll cookie mixture into 42 balls, about 1-inch in diameter.
Dip balls in chocolate; place on wax paper-covered baking sheet. (Any leftover chocolate can be stored at room temperature for another use.) Sprinkle with reserved cookie crumbs.

Refrigerate until firm, about 1 hour. Store leftover truffles, covered, in refrigerator.
Footnotes

How to How to Easily Dip Truffles

Place truffle ball in melted chocolate to coat; roll if necessary. Lift truffle from chocolate using 2 forks (this will allow excess chocolate to run off) before placing on wax paper.

Funny, I ve seen this recipe used on another site called E-The-People...Hmmmmmmm could it be a coincedence maybe ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

The Baker Act, you buffoon, refers to people with or exhibiting signs of mental illness, and as I already pointed out, that doesn't apply to George Zimmerman. And no, refusing to go to the ER does NOT constitute evidence of mental illness.

Congratulations! You're still a brainless twat! Just how often DO men pat you on the head and say, "Oh, don't worry your little mind about that, honey. Just go make me a sandwich and let me handle it"?

 

[beagle9]

I would not recommend that you actually try it, but if you are ever in the position of having the back of your head bashed into the concrete (suffering ONLY gashes to your skull), I'm sure IN THAT MOMENT you will be calm and objective and "see" that nobody is trying to kill you or in the process of trying to cause you great bodily harm. Nah.

Yes. Now that I think about it, I'm SURE that's how it works.

The gashes do not appear when he walked in the police station; perhaps some will be manufactured. The lack of serious injuries does not negate self defense. But the constant drone of the Z zombies about how seriously injured he was raises questions.

(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs before being taken into the police precinct? Why yes. Yes he was:

Later in the recorded interview with investigators, the responder said it appeared that the “nose was swollen and that there were abrasions on his cheeks and face.”

The responders differ on the wound or wounds to the back of the head, but both agreed there was at least one laceration. Zimmerman told police he scuffled with Martin, who banged Zimmerman's head on the ground.

One responder said there was a “laceration at least an inch by a half-inch wide.”

“There were two lacerations at the back of his head, one deeper than the other,” another responder said during her interview. “We cleaned him up and got them to stop bleeding.”

She said Zimmerman complained of feeling dizzy at one point and seemed impaired. Both responders said they thought police would take Zimmerman to a hospital for stitches to his head.

Special prosecutor Angela B. Corey authorized the creation of a website for access to the dozens of CDs of information collected in the wake of Martin’s death. The released documents include reports from five Sanford, Fla., police investigators and recorded statements from about two dozen witnesses. There are also photographs from that night.

excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene. I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit? This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point. I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were." The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING even if it later turned out to be worth less concern.

Sounds like what was attempted to be pulled on Bush, with all the conspiricy theories and so forth, and shockingly suggesting that his team orchastarted 9-11 and so on and so forth, and I bet these are the same types who would have levied those claims against Bush, just as they are attempting to spin this against Zimmerman to their own ends also. They will just pop up anywhere won't they (?), and it seems that they are gaining in numbers more and more, because this nation is getting more and more ignorant by each passing day.

 

[Peach]

I would not recommend that you actually try it, but if you are ever in the position of having the back of your head bashed into the concrete (suffering ONLY gashes to your skull), I'm sure IN THAT MOMENT you will be calm and objective and "see" that nobody is trying to kill you or in the process of trying to cause you great bodily harm. Nah.

Yes. Now that I think about it, I'm SURE that's how it works.

The gashes do not appear when he walked in the police station; perhaps some will be manufactured. The lack of serious injuries does not negate self defense. But the constant drone of the Z zombies about how seriously injured he was raises questions.

(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs before being taken into the police precinct? Why yes. Yes he was:

Later in the recorded interview with investigators, the responder said it appeared that the “nose was swollen and that there were abrasions on his cheeks and face.”

The responders differ on the wound or wounds to the back of the head, but both agreed there was at least one laceration. Zimmerman told police he scuffled with Martin, who banged Zimmerman's head on the ground.

One responder said there was a “laceration at least an inch by a half-inch wide.”

“There were two lacerations at the back of his head, one deeper than the other,” another responder said during her interview. “We cleaned him up and got them to stop bleeding.”

She said Zimmerman complained of feeling dizzy at one point and seemed impaired. Both responders said they thought police would take Zimmerman to a hospital for stitches to his head.

Special prosecutor Angela B. Corey authorized the creation of a website for access to the dozens of CDs of information collected in the wake of Martin’s death. The released documents include reports from five Sanford, Fla., police investigators and recorded statements from about two dozen witnesses. There are also photographs from that night.

excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene. I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit? This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point. I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were." The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING even if it later turned out to be worth less concern.

Actually Liabilty, I posted twice that the lack of serious injuries does not prove it wasn't self defense; we know not what the victim said, or did. He may have had a sturdy tree branch, rock, or even threatened with the can of ice tea.

 

[Liability]

The gashes do not appear when he walked in the police station; perhaps some will be manufactured. The lack of serious injuries does not negate self defense. But the constant drone of the Z zombies about how seriously injured he was raises questions.

(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs before being taken into the police precinct? Why yes. Yes he was:

Later in the recorded interview with investigators, the responder said it appeared that the “nose was swollen and that there were abrasions on his cheeks and face.”

The responders differ on the wound or wounds to the back of the head, but both agreed there was at least one laceration. Zimmerman told police he scuffled with Martin, who banged Zimmerman's head on the ground.

One responder said there was a “laceration at least an inch by a half-inch wide.”

“There were two lacerations at the back of his head, one deeper than the other,” another responder said during her interview. “We cleaned him up and got them to stop bleeding.”

She said Zimmerman complained of feeling dizzy at one point and seemed impaired. Both responders said they thought police would take Zimmerman to a hospital for stitches to his head.

Special prosecutor Angela B. Corey authorized the creation of a website for access to the dozens of CDs of information collected in the wake of Martin’s death. The released documents include reports from five Sanford, Fla., police investigators and recorded statements from about two dozen witnesses. There are also photographs from that night.

excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene. I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit? This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point. I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were." The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING even if it later turned out to be worth less concern.

Actually Liabilty, I posted twice that the lack of serious injuries does not prove it wasn't self defense; we know not what the victim said, or did. He may have had a sturdy tree branch, rock, or even threatened with the can of ice tea.

We DON'T know what WHICH victim said or did? By "victim" are you referring to the guy who got shot to death, Trayvon Martin? OR are you referring to the victim of the various head wounds, George Zimmerman.

None of US will EVER "know" what did or did not happen prior to the shooting with any degree of precision, since the only witness who survived the incident may or may not be honest in his account. And we won't know which for sure.

NONETHELESS, we can and do know that much of what the surviving victim claimed from the very outset appears to have support in the physical evidence.

Based on that which we do know and the reasonable inferences which can be derived from those things, it SEEMS probable to me that George Zimmerman has a strong case of a justification defense.

Still, it is advisable to wait for the evidence before coming to any "conclusions." Hopefully, the jury (if the case ever makes it to trial) will do just that.

I suspect that the case will be getting tossed before that day ever comes.

 

[Peach]

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)

By all means, feel free to point out where in your statute, which deals exclusively with people with mental illnesses and people whose court cases are already in progress, ANYONE had the right to force George Zimmerman to go to the hospital that night. Let's see the quote highlighted, please, because even YOU are not stupid enough to think I'm going to accept it just because you say it's there. And I don't care fuck-all for your little anecdote, so cite the law, or shut your hole.

I already did, here it is yet again, from DCF:


http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

 

[Peach]

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

The Baker Act, you buffoon, refers to people with or exhibiting signs of mental illness, and as I already pointed out, that doesn't apply to George Zimmerman. And no, refusing to go to the ER does NOT constitute evidence of mental illness.

Congratulations! You're still a brainless twat! Just how often DO men pat you on the head and say, "Oh, don't worry your little mind about that, honey. Just go make me a sandwich and let me handle it"?

Learn to read things other than porno, it might increase you verbal skills. I have posted both the law & DCF admin. code. You are appear mentally impaired at this point.

 

[Liability]

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)

By all means, feel free to point out where in your statute, which deals exclusively with people with mental illnesses and people whose court cases are already in progress, ANYONE had the right to force George Zimmerman to go to the hospital that night. Let's see the quote highlighted, please, because even YOU are not stupid enough to think I'm going to accept it just because you say it's there. And I don't care fuck-all for your little anecdote, so cite the law, or shut your hole.

I already did, here it is yet again, from DCF:


http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

Being held against one's will under the "baker Act" exposes the hospital and staff to pleasant prospect of being sued -- successfully -- if the hold

Q. I am the Medical Director of a hospital group. There is a common scenario we encounter on general hospital units. The patient wants to leave, but their medical condition dictates that they stay in hospital. They may be a bit confused, or not; usually they’re disagreeable. There is no clear indication of “mental illness” and definitely no indication for inpatient psychiatric care. These patients are often placed under BA-52 because the medical attendings think this is the only way to hold these patients against their will. I have discussed this with them many times, taking the position that the Baker Act has no bearing because they are on a medical unit and the Baker Act only serves to get them to a psych unit once they are cleared, and that the Baker Act is inappropriate if they don’t meet the definition of mental illness. If inpatient psych care is not in the plan, why use a Baker Act? I suppose that delirium could meet the legal definition for mental illness, but I see that as a loose use of the term.
[Answer:] You’re correct in all aspects regarding the issue you raise in your message – it is indeed a most difficult one and one without an easy answer. As you point out,the use of the Baker Act to prevent the release of a person who may be refusing or unable to determine the need for medical treatment would be inappropriate and could expose the physician and the hospital to liability.

-- From the VERY document you linked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.

The REAL doctor says he was injured: you're NOT a doctor. You're just Peach, a fucking moron on the Internet.

The FAMILY doctor.....bit of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say? And Zimmerman went to him THE NEXT DAY TO GET PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO WORK! Hardly the actions of a man who had his head "bashed" in, or suffered wounds from a life and death struggle.

But no concussion, no prescription for pain killers (which would be interesting being that Zimmerman is ALREADY on mood altering prescription drugs). The paramedics that treated him at the scene do not corroborate the "severity" take that the family doctor does. And Zimmerman NEVER went to the hospital.

Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie. Carry on.

If he didn't get hurt why did he need to go to the doctor to return to work?

 

[Peach]

(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs before being taken into the police precinct? Why yes. Yes he was: excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene. I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit? This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point. I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were." The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING even if it later turned out to be worth less concern.

Actually Liabilty, I posted twice that the lack of serious injuries does not prove it wasn't self defense; we know not what the victim said, or did. He may have had a sturdy tree branch, rock, or even threatened with the can of ice tea.

We DON'T know what WHICH victim said or did? By "victim" are you referring to the guy who got shot to death, Trayvon Martin? OR are you referring to the victim of the various head wounds, George Zimmerman.

None of US will EVER "know" what did or did not happen prior to the shooting with any degree of precision, since the only witness who survived the incident may or may not be honest in his account. And we won't know which for sure.

NONETHELESS, we can and do know that much of what the surviving victim claimed from the very outset appears to have support in the physical evidence.

Based on that which we do know and the reasonable inferences which can be derived from those things, it SEEMS probable to me that George Zimmerman has a strong case of a justification defense.

Still, it is advisable to wait for the evidence before coming to any "conclusions." Hopefully, the jury (if the case ever makes it to trial) will do just that.

I suspect that the case will be getting tossed before that day ever comes.

Could be, though the victim's girlfriend has spoken recently. I refer to the victim & killer at times yes. The teenager that was shot & killed is the victim. I am thinking now a plea seal, but it could be dismissal. The SP filed 2nd degree, thus she seems confident in her case. The 4th Circuit is very conservative, Clay & Duval have big majorities-Republican. I doubt Corey charged to please anyone. The CPC is a tough set of laws. CPC stands for CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE.

 

[Peach]

One LAST time for C1200:

Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Defined

Q. How is an emergency medical condition defined in the Baker Act?
The Baker Act has no separate definition for an emergency medical condition; it refers to the hospital
licensure law for this definition, as follows.

395.002 Definitions.-- As used in this chapter:
(8) "Emergency medical condition" means:
(a) A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may
include severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably
be expected to result in any of the following:
1. Serious jeopardy to patient health, including a pregnant woman or fetus.
2. Serious impairment to bodily functions.
3. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
(b) With respect to a pregnant woman:
1. That there is inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery;
2. That a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus; or
3. That there is evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions or rupture of the
membranes.
(9) "Emergency services and care" means medical screening, examination, and evaluation by
a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, by other appropriate personnel under
the supervision of a physician, to determine if an emergency medical condition exists and, if it
does, the care, treatment, or surgery by a physician necessary to relieve or eliminate the
emergency medical condition, within the service capability of the facility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf

Being in a fight is not considered a mental health or drug abuse emergency. If any police officer ever tried to hold me for involuntary medical treatment you can bet he wouldn't get very far because a) it only applies if the patient is mentally incompetent and b) I know how to cite a religious objection to it to prove I am not mentally incompetent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.

yet the photos show minor cuts

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.

I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for, IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.

IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.

Link?

 

[Annie]

C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.

yet the photos show minor cuts

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.

I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for, IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.

I'm unsure what you are referring to in area I've bolded. My response is to refusal of medical care. He'd just shot someone. Ever hear of shock? Remorse? Guilt? Even if self-defense? Ever hear of police officers having similar problems? Military members? PTSD? Think of rape victims that hit the showers with scalding water, before reporting or not.