George Zimmerman's bloody head

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....


Where's the evidence of the broken nose?

I don't blame you for this at all Marc

They (Many media outlets) lied to us about zimmerman's race.
They (NBC) lied to us about his 911 call and him having used racial slurs.

Who knows what else is true or a lie from the media anymore.

I will say one thing about ABC, who released the picture, is that they have been pretty good about keeping their coverage "news" based as a hard news story without much commentary. I watched MSNBC and those guys are basically convicting zimmerman over there, its not news its like watching the USMB if we had a TV station.

Nice touch.

Doesn't that "bloody" pic look on the doctored side to you?

So tell me something, you're quick to point out the "lies" of some of the media.

How about Zimmerman's lies. How many of Zimmerman's lies have you identified thus far?

Honestly I'm not sure if the pic is real or doctored. Previous things the media presented, such as NBC's edited 911 tape that misled me initially, have me not trusting what the media is telling us or deciding not to tell us about this whole case.

I'm not sure what is true coming out of zimmerman or the Martin family/friends either. This is why I had kept saying that zimmerman needed to be arrested and put in front of a judge who could evaluate the REAL evidence and decide where to go from there.

I'm not sure why you appear to take issue with someone being honest about the situation, unless you already decided Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

EDIT: I just read the other posts after the one I quoted. I never saw Zimmerman claim his nose was broken, can you provide me with the evidence that he did so himself?

 

[Bigfoot]

I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....


Where's the evidence of the broken nose?

You should accept that photo of the back of his head, it is solid evidence. You should also realize that Zimmerman likely had a bloody nose from Martin hitting him.

No, no, no...! I won't let you, and/or others, get away with the sneaky BS. The report was a BROKEN nose, not a BLOODY nose and you know it.

That's been now proven to be a lie. Has it not?

I heard "bloody nose" then someone in his family said "broken" his father perhaps? Your mileage may vary. ~shrug~ You are going to deny anything you want to anyway. As far as Zimmerman NOT releasing much evidence as of yet, I am sure that is exactly what his Attorney would be telling him to do.

That photo of the back of his head was shot about 3 minutes after the altercation. A reasonable person would find that evidence difficult to deny.

 

[Liability]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

They don't have to be life threatening to justify the shooting. The question is, would a reasonably prudent person lying on the ground being beaten by Martin perceive the beating to be putting him in danger of great bodily harm? How many times would your head have to be pounded into the ground before you believed you were in danger of suffering great bodily harm? That is the question the jury has to answer, not how serious were the actual injuries.

 

[Nosmo King]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

 

[Liability]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

But that is not what happened. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin after Zimmerman had already left the car, and when Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." That's a suggestion, not an instruction. And Zimmerman's response is, "Ok," indicating that he stopped following Martin.

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

 

[Nosmo King]

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

 

[Nosmo King]

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

What?!? If you are being pursued and decide that the pursuit is unwarranted, are you then responsible for the actions of your pursuer? Is a rape victim responsible if she turns and attacks her rapist?

 

[koshergrl]

Why in God's name would a woman being chased by a man who wants to rape her go back to find him after she manages to get away?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

What?!? If you are being pursued and decide that the pursuit is unwarranted, are you then responsible for the actions of your pursuer? Is a rape victim responsible if she turns and attacks her rapist?

Wow, asbestos, rape, apparently you want to discuss this in any terms at all other than the facts of the case. Pursue implies an intent to overtake, confront or capture, but all the evidence indicates that Zimmerman had no intention of overtaking and confronting Martin and was merely following him so he could advise the police of his location when they arrived, and when the dispatcher suggested he stop following Martin, Zimmerman said, "Ok," indicating he had stopped following him. That being the case, the confrontation must have been initiated by Martin who had now turned and pursued Zimmerman. Clearly, this was an imprudent action by Martin that contributed heavily to his death.

 

[Ravi]

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

We don't know that that is what happened. But if it had, the Stand your Ground law would have backed Martin up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

We don't know that that is what happened. But if it had, the Stand your Ground law would have backed Martin up.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You should accept that photo of the back of his head, it is solid evidence. You should also realize that Zimmerman likely had a bloody nose from Martin hitting him.

No, no, no...! I won't let you, and/or others, get away with the sneaky BS. The report was a BROKEN nose, not a BLOODY nose and you know it.

That's been now proven to be a lie. Has it not?

I heard "bloody nose" then someone in his family said "broken" his father perhaps? Your mileage may vary. ~shrug~ You are going to deny anything you want to anyway. As far as Zimmerman NOT releasing much evidence as of yet, I am sure that is exactly what his Attorney would be telling him to do.

That photo of the back of his head was shot about 3 minutes after the altercation. A reasonable person would find that evidence difficult to deny.

The defendant's side of the trial doesn't "release evidence". They get to keep anything they have a secret, if they choose to, until trial. Only the prosecution is required to reveal everything prior to trial, and then only to the defendant's lawyer and the court. NO ONE is required to tell the public jack shit, and the defendant's lawyer would have to be stupid to the point of malpractice to tell anyone anything before the trial.

Cripes, people. You can learn this shit from reading John Grisham.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

What?!? If you are being pursued and decide that the pursuit is unwarranted, are you then responsible for the actions of your pursuer? Is a rape victim responsible if she turns and attacks her rapist?

If running away is an option? Or better yet (since the guy had a cell phone), running away and calling the police? Yes, turning and confronting - especially if unarmed - is a piss-poor, stupid choice.

 

[Bigfoot]

No, no, no...! I won't let you, and/or others, get away with the sneaky BS. The report was a BROKEN nose, not a BLOODY nose and you know it.

That's been now proven to be a lie. Has it not?

I heard "bloody nose" then someone in his family said "broken" his father perhaps? Your mileage may vary. ~shrug~ You are going to deny anything you want to anyway. As far as Zimmerman NOT releasing much evidence as of yet, I am sure that is exactly what his Attorney would be telling him to do.

That photo of the back of his head was shot about 3 minutes after the altercation. A reasonable person would find that evidence difficult to deny.

The defendant's side of the trial doesn't "release evidence". They get to keep anything they have a secret, if they choose to, until trial. Only the prosecution is required to reveal everything prior to trial, and then only to the defendant's lawyer and the court. NO ONE is required to tell the public jack shit, and the defendant's lawyer would have to be stupid to the point of malpractice to tell anyone anything before the trial.

Cripes, people. You can learn this shit from reading John Grisham.

Yeah. claiming Zimmerman's camp has nothing because they haven't released any evidence is pretty silly. Sometimes I just don't get MarcATL.

 

[Liability]

I was not there either. But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'. You place the 911 call. the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive.

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?

Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Again, not the case. A cop advised GZ that he did not "have" to do something. GZ was, nevertheless, entitled to go right ahead.

And we aren't discussing the possibility of civil liability for the police or Sanford, FL.

The topic is whether following a possible suspect entitles that possible suspect to bea the shit out of the one doing the following. and the answer is "no."

Again, we don't know that this is the scenario that happened. But if it is, the fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon is of NO significance.

 

[Liability]

Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they? I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?

Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.

What?!? If you are being pursued and decide that the pursuit is unwarranted, are you then responsible for the actions of your pursuer? Is a rape victim responsible if she turns and attacks her rapist?

Why do so many folks insist on trying to conflate "followed" with "pursued?"

Even if Trayvon HAD been "pursued," TRAYVON and ONLY Trayvon is responsible for his own ensuing CONDUCT.

 

[Luissa]

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening. Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?

I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened. So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively. So you watch and follow. And, suspicious, you notify the police. Then something happens. The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options or do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?

We don't know what really went down, but from the girlfriend's testimony, I am going with Zimmerman following Martin, confronting him, and then trying to hold him there until police arrive because he was sick of those punks getting away with it. Martin fought back, and from Zimmerman's lack of injuries, I highly doubt his head hit the pavement more than once. Martin also probably fought back because he has no idea who Zimmerman is.
Zimmerman has a history of assault, Martin does not.