Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

You mean he wasn't one blow away from pampers and being spoon fed for the rest of his life by dear brother?

I believe the standard is reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, not some other sarcastic standard and unworkable standard.

And where is that EMT report you were discussing, do you have it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

But he does need injuries consistent with what he claims.

In what way are his injuries inconsistant? For the most part having your head banged against flat concrete is a crushing injury, not a tearing one, so you could actually claim that any lacerations are inconsistant with it. However, having noted that it's unlikely that there would be zero sheering to such an action, so minor laceration could easily occur, exactly what we see. What is unlikely is major lacerating of the scalp because that would require a sharp object to tear the skin.

That he was walking fairly easily after 30 minutes? I used to referee Rugby Union and I have seem rugby players severly concussed during a game, almost unable to stand up by themselves, but who after being checked out by St John (equiv to volunteer Paramedics) and given 30 mins rest were pretty close to normal. How then is seeing someone walking about 30 minutes later any indication of what they were like immediately after the incident?

 

[Dancing David]

I don't intend to report it - however I do not appreciate you taking my words and changing them.

That's a reasonable request and I would suggest as a matter of courtesy for the direct quotes of a poster that measure to not be employed,

Then report it or accept it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You mean he wasn't one blow away from pampers and being spoon fed for the rest of his life by dear brother?

How many blows on the head does a person need to receive to end up in "pampers and being spoon fed for the rest of his life"?

 

[PhantomWolf]

GZ has every reason in the world to lie. He's facing a prison term.

NASA had reason to lie about going to the moon. GWB had reason to lie about not being involved in 9/11. OMG!!!!

 

[Dancing David]

How many blows on the head does a person need to receive to end up in "pampers and being spoon fed for the rest of his life"?

I believe the evil n-words that invoke Godwin determined it to be four.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yup. I know there was blood there. No doubt about it. I've never once said there wasn't.

Not a clue as to the extent of his injuries, just that he was treated for literally a few minutes in the back of a squad car, that he had no bandages, that he had no blood on his clothes, and that he walked with a perfect gait as he was strolled through the police station for six minutes. (Nice thoughtful boy that he is, he even wiped his feet as he was escorted in...!)

But by jimminy, no doubt about it. The officers observed he had blood on the back of his head and his nose.

So it's impossible for bleeding to have stopped and the feeling of concussion to have passed enough to act normally in 30 minutes?

 

[johnny karate]

In what way are his injuries inconsistant? For the most part having your head banged against flat concrete is a crushing injury, not a tearing one, so you could actually claim that any lacerations are inconsistant with it. However, having noted that it's unlikely that there would be zero sheering to such an action, so minor laceration could easily occur, exactly what we see. What is unlikely is major lacerating of the scalp because that would require a sharp object to tear the skin.

That he was walking fairly easily after 30 minutes? I used to referee Rugby Union and I have seem rugby players severly concussed during a game, almost unable to stand up by themselves, but who after being checked out by St John (equiv to volunteer Paramedics) and given 30 mins rest were pretty close to normal. How then is seeing someone walking about 30 minutes later any indication of what they were like immediately after the incident?

Your non-medical expertise and anecdotal evidence is very compelling.

 

[GWCarver]

I'm gonna say right now - I don't think his head was anywhere near the concrete sidewalk.

And I am going to go on record right here, right now and say I do not believe the crime scene photos will show the blood evidence on the concrete sidewalk, in any way shape or form.

It's bold!

It's new!

It's on record!

Quote me later directly and make a fool of me if I am wrong. I don't think I will be, but I'm puttin' it out there.

Here: You can bookmark it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8274847&postcount=9625

It sounds like you have a lot of faith in Goatbreath's testimony at the bond hearing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Your non-medical expertise and anecdotal evidence is very compelling.

You made a claim that the injuries are inconsistant, in my experience and knowledge they aren't. What is your evidence otherwise, or do you have none, like for everything else you keep claiming?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It sounds like you have a lot of faith in Goatbreath's testimony at the bond hearing.

I seem to recall that the same thing happened when there was this little known case in a small country no one had ever heard of called Italy.

 

[LTC8K6]

I do find it surprising that a skeptic would accept GZ's version of events as enough reason not to assume a defendant is lying.

I have stated many times that GZ could be charged in the incident, just not with murder 2.

I know this thread is all over the place, but try to keep up.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In what way are his injuries inconsistent?

They are inconsistent with that some people want to believe, what more do they need?

Personally I've never understand that type of thinking. Having an opinion should not force one to embrace stupidity. It's one thing to believe that GZ should be charged with manslaughter, or that he may or even probably is lying, it's another entirely to feel the need to claim that GZ's injuries were not real, or faked, or that he went home and broke his nose.

 

[johnny karate]

You made a claim that the injuries are inconsistant, in my experience and knowledge they aren't. What is your evidence otherwise, or do you have none, like for everything else you keep claiming?

This was covered pages ago when a resident NREMT-P (Nationally Recognized EMT-Paramedic) offered his assessment based on that most recent photo taken at the scene:

I don't see his wounds as being all that severe as Zimmerman et al. have claimed. I would love to see more detailed photos, but from the photo I have seen, that is my professional assessment.

If I see evidence that shows his injuries were more severe, I will not dispute that. But, based on the limited information that I have, his injuries do not appear severe at all.

That was of course dismissed, it was implied triforcharity was a liar, and absolutely no counter evidence was ever presented. I fully expect you to be the next in line to dismiss it.

Also:

What is your evidence otherwise, or do you have none, like for everything else you keep claiming?

Please provide quotes for the claims I have made that require evidence, or I'll just assume you were taking an unwarranted swipe at me.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I do find it surprising that a skeptic would accept GZ's version of events as enough reason not to assume a defendant is lying.

Speaking for myself, which I think applies to most on my "side", I am leaning towards accepting GZ's version of events because the evidence appears to support them. So evidence = believing GZ; not believe GZ and then interpret all evidence to fit that presumption.

Many people on the other side seem to be using the second equation and that's why they keep rejecting any evidence that doesn't fit their presumption and we end up with "bloody photo, something's just not right with that" "broken nose, GZ must have done it himself", "screwdriver and jewelery TM can't account for, no way that suggests it was stolen". (the last one isn't even evidence directly related to the case, yet they feel the need to be in denial).

BTW, you are one that has not done this, so none of that is directed at you. Though I think you need to come up with a better argument than "GZ has every reason to lie" . Sure he does, but does the evidence suggest that he is lying? In fact it quite amazingly seems to back up every aspect of his story.

 

[GWCarver]

My apologies if this has already been put up, but, just in case, here is a link to a video of the Zimmerman bond hearing without commercial interruptions:

http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

ETA - More accurately, the video contains testimony not present in the CNN transcripts and videos which have gaps due to commercials.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This was covered pages ago when a resident NREMT-P (Nationally Recognized EMT-Paramedic) offered his assessment based on that most recent photo taken at the scene:

That was of course dismissed, it was implied triforcharity was a liar, and absolutely no counter evidence was ever presented. I fully expect you to be the next in line to dismiss it.

Where does triforcharity state anything about the severity or the visibility of the wounds that would be caused by having the back of your head hit on concrete? He is commenting on the video and what he can see in it. You are claiming that GZ's wounds are inconsistent with his statement that he had his head hit onto the concrete footpath. I don't see anything that triforcharity says that indicates that having the back of your head hit onto concrete would always create wounds worse than those that GZ had; merely that GZ's wounds were not severe. If you want to dispute that the wounds could not have been caused as GZ claimed, then it's up to you to show why.

The argument you are quoting from is more about if the wounds were life-threatening, the answer is clearly no, however if they were the result of being hit in the head, which would appear likely, how many times do you need to hit someone in the head, hard to cause minor lacerations, to kill them?

Also:
Please provide quotes for the claims I have made that require evidence, or I'll just assume you were taking an unwarranted swipe at me.

Sorry, I have you mixed up with two other posters with similar arguments who aren't as good at avoiding stating exactly what they are thinking occured.

 

[johnny karate]

Where does triforcharity state anything about the severity or the visibility of the wounds that would be caused by having the back of your head hit on concrete? He is commenting on the video and what he can see in it. You are claiming that GZ's wounds are inconsistent with his statement that he had his head hit onto the concrete footpath. I don't see anything that triforcharity says that indicates that having the back of your head hit onto concrete would always create wounds worse than those that GZ had; merely that GZ's wounds were not severe. If you want to dispute that the wounds could not have been caused as GZ claimed, then it's up to you to show why.

I've never actually claimed the bolded part.

Let's take this conversation back to the beginning, and distill it to its essence:

But he does need injuries consistent with what he claims.

In what way are his injuries inconsistant?

I don't see his wounds as being all that severe as Zimmerman et al. have claimed.

If the wounds are not as severe as originally claimed, that would be inconsistent.

Clear now?

The argument you are quoting from is more about if the wounds were life-threatening, the answer is clearly no, however if they were the result of being hit in the head, which would appear likely, how many times do you need to hit someone in the head, hard to cause minor lacerations, to kill them?

How novel. In an argument about the veracity of Zimmerman's account vis-a-vis his injuries, someone changes course midstream and makes the argument about how the severity of the injuries relates to his self-defense claim. Certainly haven't already seen that brilliant tactic multiple times in this thread.

Sorry, I have you mixed up with two other posters with similar arguments who aren't as good at avoiding stating exactly what they are thinking occured.

So it goes from the implication that I'm a liar to the implication that I'm a liar who lacks the courage of my convictions. I guess not personalizing the discussion and simply arguing the issue is proving too difficult a task.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure why GZ would make any claims about the severity of the wounds.

Did GZ make any such claims? He certainly wouldn't need to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've never actually claimed the bolded part.

Let's take this conversation back to the beginning, and distill it to its essence:




If the wounds are not as severe as originally claimed, that would be inconsistent.

Clear now?

no, because if you go further back the whole "his injuries were inconsistant" came from a discussion about whether his head was being hit on the concrete. No-where was there a discussion about how servere GZ or others claimed his injuries were unless you are planning to go near a hundred pages back. On top of that, I don't recall anyone claiming that he had gapping open laceration streaming blood either, the most I have heard is that he was bleeding, which he was. Do you have any statments that show anyone was claiming more than he was bleeding?

How novel. In an argument about the veracity of Zimmerman's account vis-a-vis his injuries, someone changes course midstream and makes the argument about how the severity of the injuries relates to his self-defense claim. Certainly haven't already seen that brilliant tactic multiple times in this thread.

I didn't change the argument at all, I pointed out that the quote you mined was from a different argument. On that basis, if anyone was trying to change the argument it was you by introducing the answer to one question into the discussion on a second question and trying to pretend it was relevent.

So it goes from the implication that I'm a liar to the implication that I'm a liar who lacks the courage of my convictions. I guess not personalizing the discussion and simply arguing the issue is proving too difficult a task.

Where have I implied you are a lair? I apologised for stating that you had made claims without backing them up, basically because on going back and checking I found that, at least rescently, I didn't check further, you don't make claims at all. You just insinuate your position without actually making claims or providing evidence for that position. You stance seems to be totally one of not believing anything that might show otherwise than your position. I have never stated that you are lying about anything, and I doubt you can find anything that indicates that.