Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

We are not imagining these scenerios, that was Zimmerman's original claim. The unfortunate circumstance is that I by the time the entire report became available, so many alternate theories have been given that it's difficult to believe but this isn't the creation of people comingin defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed, from the beginning, that he was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him.

And from that you posited a scenario in which Martin might have been reaching for Zimmerman's gun. Seems like imagination at work to me since there's nothing too support it.

Like I said, I find it very interesting the amount of energy being exerted to figure out what Martin might have been doing wrong while ignoring what we know Zimmerman was doing wrong.

Even a small flesh wound can be described as a laceration. I don't give too much credence to Zimmerman's lawyer because he seems to be just as quick to make an argument without checking facts.

Another way to look at it is that Zimmerman's lawyer went on national T.V. and just flat out lied. But I keep forgetting, we're supposed to give the guy who killed someone every benefit of the doubt.

However, you cannot deny that the drips and drabs in which the actual claim was released made it look like Zimmerman was constantly changing his story, despite the fact that there is only one version made by him.

I haven't experience that, at least until now in which the story coming from the Zimmerman camp actually does seem to contradict the facts.

 

[RandFan]

Ok - bottom line. Did the video PROVE that he had NO lacerations to the back of his scalp ?

No. Did the video cast doubt on the story that Martin's head was bashed into the concrete?

 

[triforcharity]

Not only that, paramedics are only certified, not licensed. That means they function under very limited protocols. They are not allowed to do just anything, trained or not.

Correct. I've been a NREMT-P for about 6 years now, but an EMT since about 1998.

But, even being an EMT-P, I would not even attempt to suture. For the simple reason, we don't stock suture kits. Not to even mention the legal ramifications.....

 

[crimresearch]

D'uh. I'm pretty sure I said that a while back.

You must think we are all stupid.

I'm pretty sure you never said that in some states an MD's scope of practice was limited by state EMS regs.
In fact I'm pretty sure you said that it was unlimited because they had a license.

All of those with certificates can only practice with a licensed professional actually named on their certificate. While licensed professionals have no such requirement.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that you also patronizingly lectured an attorney on this board that she didn't know anything about the law, and that is why she was 'making up' her own definitions for legal terminology that she wasn't capable of understanding.

So, no, 'stupid' isn't the word I would choose, and what I do think, I would be careful to apply just to those who have earned it... if the rules permitted.

Now whether or not you are done with your often employed derail of using this young man's dead body as a trampoline for this ad hominem game of attacking other posters so as to list your own fluctuating parade of credentials, instead of discussing the facts... I'm done listening to it.

 

[triforcharity]

Each state writes their own regulations on who can do what.

When I was running wilderness rescue ages ago, we had an MD move to our town and want to join the rescue squad.

I would have thought he could jump right in, but until he went through at least the basic EMT class, he wasn't allowed in the back of the ambulance, MD or not.

Wow, that's goddamn shocking. An MD could have schooled all the EMT's, and he had to obtain EMT-B to get in? Holy crap. Shocking.

Most likely due to legal reasons. Dumb ones though.

 

[crimresearch]

I didn't say anyone was walking back their claim, but rather the claim itself is being walked back by the perhaps Zimmerman-friendly contingent of this thread who are now telling us that the lack of visible lacerations doesn't really matter, despite the fact that up until the release of that video that Zimmerman suffered scalp lacerations was the accepted narrative.

I see a contingent of people trying to match up what little is available about this incident with the correct laws, and tracking various profferred explanations to the point where they don't add up any more.

What seems to be left is that Zimmerman's story is weak, but it might get him past a jury based on the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary.

That isn't being friendly to anyone.

 

[johnny karate]

Ok - bottom line. Did the video PROVE that he had NO lacerations to the back of his scalp ?

That's the wrong question, as it rather disingenuously shifts the burden of proof. Zimmerman's lawyer is the one claiming he had a scalp laceration severe enough to require stitches. It's not my job to disprove that claim.

The real question is: Does that video substantiate that Zimmerman had a scalp laceration as claimed?

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

 

[crimresearch]

Wow, that's goddamn shocking. An MD could have schooled all the EMT's, and he had to obtain EMT-B to get in? Holy crap. Shocking.

Most likely due to legal reasons. Dumb ones though.

I never said that the bureaucracy wouldn't pass for dumb until something really dumb came along.

 

[sgtbaker]

And from that you posited a scenario in which Martin might have been reaching for Zimmerman's gun. Seems like imagination at work to me since there's nothing too support it.

Like I said, I find it very interesting the amount of energy being exerted to figure out what Martin might have been doing wrong while ignoring what we know Zimmerman was doing wrong.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News. http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

You can choose not to believe it. You can choose to call the police source a liar. This is not stuff being made up to "defend" Zimmerman. According to the source, this is Zimmerman's claim and has been, from the beginning.

Another way to look at it is that Zimmerman's lawyer went on national T.V. and just flat out lied. But I keep forgetting, we're supposed to give the guy who killed someone every benefit of the doubt.

There you go, again. His lawyer appears to be dishonest so by default, Zimmerman is. That's exactly what I am talking about.

I haven't experience that, at least until now in which the story coming from the Zimmerman camp actually does seem to contradict the facts.

There really isn't a Zimmerman camp. There is a hang 'em high camp and a "wait, there are a lot of false assumptions" camp.

I hate deleting what I said, after I post something because if someone is already in the process of quoting, things get really confused. I will leave the statement above but admit that I am wrong. There are many views on this between hang em high and there are a lot of false assumptions. I shouldn't make such dichotomies.

 

[triforcharity]

Pardon me if this has already been discussed, but in Australia if Zimmerman was the victim of a simple mugging his injuries (if any) would still have been photographed for evidence purposes. It seems logical that in a case involving a dead body that the police would have asked for such photographs. Do procedures differ in the USA, or should such photographs exist if Zimmerman really was injured and really did want to document it to cover himself legally?

I would assume they were taken at the station, or maybe even before that.

If they weren't taken, they might as well fire the entire investigation team for gross dereliction of duty. And being really stupid.

But, we don't know, as they haven't been released, and most likely won't be released through official channels.

 

[Checkmite]

Folks, let's just take a few steps back, breathe deeply, and check ourselves...

I don't seem to have any lacerations.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No. Did the video cast doubt on the story that Martin's head was bashed into the concrete?

Personally ? No. The resolution is too low to be useful.

 

[crimresearch]

Ok - bottom line. Did the video PROVE that he had NO lacerations to the back of his scalp ?

They might have been racoon bites... that would get rid of 2 for the price of 1

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's the wrong question, as it rather disingenuously shifts the burden of proof. Zimmerman's lawyer is the one claiming he had a scalp laceration severe enough to require stitches. It's not my job to disprove that claim.

The real question is: Does that video substantiate that Zimmerman had a scalp laceration as claimed?

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

I don't understand why you can't answer my question and make your point, both.

And no, I don't think the video substantiates his claim, as per my answer to RandFan

 

[johnny karate]

You can choose not to believe it. You can choose to call the police source a liar. This is not stuff being made up to "defend" Zimmerman. According to the source, this is Zimmerman's claim and has been, from the beginning.

Fair enough.

There you go, again. His lawyer appears to be dishonest so by default, Zimmerman is. That's exactly what I am talking about.

Zimmerman's lawyer doesn't speak on his behalf? If not, Zimmerman should probably fire the guy. Again, either way, it's not up to me to give the guy who killed someone the benefit of the doubt because his lawyer went on television and lied.

There really isn't a Zimmerman camp. There is a hang 'em high camp and a "wait, there are a lot of false assumptions" camp.

I hate deleting what I said, after I post something because if someone is already in the process of quoting, things get really confused. I will leave the statement above but admit that I am wrong. There are many views on this between hang em high and there are a lot of false assumptions. I shouldn't make such dichotomies.

For the record, I'm in the "Zimmerman killed someone and should be held accountable to the full extent of the law" camp. If a proper investigation exonerates him, than so be it. But that the guy was given a walk with so many unanswered question is ridiculous.

 

[RandFan]

Personally ? No. The resolution is too low to be useful.

Thanks. FWIW: I think it does cast doubt but I suspect that experts will find it not probative for purpose of court.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't understand why you can't answer my question and make your point, both.

And no, I don't think the video substantiates his claim, as per my answer to RandFan

Fair enough. No, I don't think it proves Zimmerman didn't receive a scalp laceration. But I do think it casts serious doubt on this claim, especially as described by his lawyer.

 

[sgtbaker]

Zimmerman's lawyer doesn't speak on his behalf? If not, Zimmerman should probably fire the guy. Again, either way, it's not up to me to give the guy who killed someone the benefit of the doubt because his lawyer went on television and lied.

The lawyer advises Zimmerman, not the other way around. What little I know about the lawyer, he seems to not know much about the night in question. I am not a lawyer, I am not a reporter, I am just a homemaker with entirely too much time on my hands, however, my uneducated opinion on this lawyer is he is not helping.

For the record, I'm in the "Zimmerman killed someone and should be held accountable to the full extent of the law" camp. If a proper investigation exonerates him, than so be it. But that the guy was given a walk with so many unanswered question is ridiculous

Like I said, I was wrong for making a statement like that. You are entitled to be in what ever camp you want. I just feel like there has been a lot of inaccuracies printed and accusations made based on very little actual evidence.

 

[Roadtoad]

I got off the phone with a friend, someone who actually knows the law, and someone who has a better understanding of what's been happening. We wound up agreeing about a lot of things, and just a few of these:

1.) While there are those who are claiming we should have captured Osama Bin Laden and brought him to trial here in the US, these same people on this board are demanding instant justice regarding George Zimmerman.

2.) There has been little condemnation regarding the New Black Panther Party and their bounty on George Zimmerman's head. Add to this the retweet by Spike Lee, and his apology that he got the wrong address, (no word that what he was doing was contributing to the mob mentality that now seems to permeate.)

3.) We have little medical information, and probably won't until trial, assuming there is one.

4.) In other words, folks, we have little solid evidence. Much of what is making up this thread is speculation.

I am not a lawyer, (and for emphasis, I've written it out), so I cannot claim ANY understanding of anything until much of this comes to trial. Frankly, when an attorney who has been trained to have a clear understanding of law looks at this and says, "I don't have enough information," my money sits there.

I'm upset that people I respect(ed) have treated the whole concept of skepticism with such contempt. UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN A COURT OF LAW, WE KNOW NOTHING.

And tragically, the chances now of George Zimmerman getting a fair trial are slim. If I were his attorney, the first thing I'd do is ask prospective jurors just what they knew. My guess is that so much "information" has been spoon fed by the media to so many of us, that there's almost no chance of finding anyone who hasn't made up their mind, save for that collection of people with just enough of an IQ to grunt.

Good luck with that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thanks. FWIW: I think it does cast doubt but I suspect that experts will find it not probative for purpose of court.

It's most likely irrelevant.

Most likely it is superseded by photographs documenting Zimmerman's injuries and the condition of his clothes.