Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure why you chose to respond to just that and ignore the content of my post.

Because I want to know who you were referring to. That information will help me decide whether you are actually interested in having a discussion, or it's just a waste of time and effort to respond.

 

[johnny karate]

Other rescue responders fail to mention the abrasions, but they appear in the photo taken around an hour later.

And if these abrasions exist, and nobody documented them in the medical reports, what does that tell you about the nature of those abrasions?

And how do superficial injuries not significant enough to be noted in the medical documentation prove Zimmerman was punched multiple times?

The EMTs also fail to mention the swelling on the side of Zimmerman's head. Is that died blood as well?

You'll have to ask the EMTs why they didn't mention the swelling you claim exists. Maybe send them your photo with the blue arrows.

 

[johnny karate]

Because I want to know who you were referring to. That information will help me decide whether you are actually interested in having a discussion, or it's just a waste of time and effort to respond.

I didn't realize I had to audition to earn your reply.

I posted the information multiple times asking for a response.

If that isn't sufficient enough to show I'm interested in having a discussion about it, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump through hoops because you want to keep dodging a question for which you have no answer.

 

[johnny karate]

However, she took "10" out to keep on her. Assuming, of course, that "10" actually refers to 10,000.

The rudimentary code the Zimmermans were using is readily apparent in the jail house transcripts. For instance, they refer to the bond amount using numbers like "15" and "100".

It's quite clear by the overall context that 10 = 10,000.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That's your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. if you could come up with a scientific study that actually shows it to be true, then I'll consider it myself.

You need a scientific study to determine that people NOT mentioning the flashlight in any way is not the same as an affirmation that "the flashlight was not on"? Whereas we do have multiple trained investigators specifically mentioning it and calling attention to the fact that it was on in their reports.

 

[WildCat]

*sigh*

Arguing with you is really quite tedious.

When did I ever claim all of Zimmerman's four documented injuries were the result of either a punch or a fall?

(I'll give you a hint: It was never.)

I'll break it down for you. Again.

Zimmerman's nose was broken when he was punched. That this was done in a single punch was confirmed by Zimmerman himself.

Zimmerman sustained two cuts on the back of his head during the ensuing struggle of the ground. The cuts were minor, and like all minor injuries don't require an explanation involving significant trauma. Minor injuries are the result of minor trauma.

The forehead abrasion that wasn't even noted the next day? Who knows? Abrasions, by definition, are minor injuries. Even more minor than the two small cuts Zimmerman sustained. Abrasion can occur in the most innocuous of ways. I'm not sure why it even matters how Zimmerman sustained such an insignificant injury.

So back to your claim: What evidence do you have that Zimmerman received "multiple punches"?

We know the broken nose was the result of a single punch.

We know the two small cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head were not the result of punches.

So what is you evidence of "multiple punches"? The deadly forehead abrasion that wasn't even significant enough to be noted during a medical exam the following day?



Asked and answered. You really need to start paying attention to what's going on.

So your claim now is that no punches were thrown during this ground struggle?

Anyway, it's quite amusing to see how far we've come from denying there were any injuries at all to Zimmerman when you were crowing about the low-res police station video. Now we have an admission that there was an assault and subsequent struggle.

Baby steps...

 

[WildCat]

And if these abrasions exist, and nobody documented them in the medical reports, what does that tell you about the nature of those abrasions?

Are you insinuating that the paramedic lied about them?

And glad to see you now agree with me that the abrasions aren't serious enough to be on the doctor's report. Just a little bit ago you swore that if it wasn't on the doctor's report they didn't exist!

I wonder if Rare Truth will come back with the speculation that Shellie Zimmerman worked him over?

 

[WildCat]

You need a scientific study to determine that people NOT mentioning the flashlight in any way is not the same as an affirmation that "the flashlight was not on"? Whereas we do have multiple trained investigators specifically mentioning it and calling attention to the fact that it was on in their reports.

But but but the photograph!1!1!1!!11!1

lol

 

[johnny karate]

So your claim now is that no punches were thrown during this ground struggle?

No, your claim is that there were multiple punches. I'm asking you for evidence of your claim.

Anyway, it's quite amusing to see how far we've come from denying there were any injuries at all to Zimmerman when you were crowing about the low-res police station video.

I never claimed there were no injuries at all. Please don't embarrass yourself further by going down that road in which you quote me saying the opposite of what you claim I was saying.

Now we have an admission that there was an assault and subsequent struggle.

Again, your ability to follow along and retain information has failed you. This is hardly some new admission. It was long ago established and acknowledged.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the same points over and over again as if each time they are some new discovery.

Baby steps...

Adorable... coming from someone who doesn't bother to keep up with the evidence of the case or what other posters have said before accusing them of saying the opposite.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't realize I had to audition to earn your reply.

That's funny. You posted that you weren't sure why I responded to those questions, so I told you. And then you turned my response into some strawman about auditioning.

I posted the information multiple times asking for a response.

And ?

If that isn't sufficient enough to show I'm interested in having a discussion about it, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump through hoops because you want to keep dodging a question for which you have no answer.

I haven't dodged the question. I asked you to clarify your remarks that you framed around the question. How you turned answering a couple of simple questions into "jumping through hoops" is beyond me.

 

[johnny karate]

Are you insinuating that the paramedic lied about them?

No. I'm insinuating that the abrasions were medically insignificant, and therefore insignificant in determining the nature and severity of the altercation.

And glad to see you now agree with me that the abrasions aren't serious enough to be on the doctor's report.

I'm not sure how you think it helps your case that the abrasions were so slight as to not warrant notice during a medical exam.

Just a little bit ago you swore that if it wasn't on the doctor's report they didn't exist!

I asked you to provide evidence that there were more injuries than those indicated on the medical reports. After pages and pages of dodging that request, someone finally did your homework for you.

Now we are left with an indeterminate amount of injuries too superficial to be mentioned in a medical report.

And you seem to think these superficial injures are evidence of "multiple punches".

Do you imagine these were just really soft punches?

Or was Martin a trained ninja who knew how to deliver deadly punches while only leaving the slightest of visible injury to his victim?

 

[johnny karate]

That's funny. You posted that you weren't sure why I responded to those questions, so I told you. And then you turned my response into some strawman about auditioning.

And ?

I haven't dodged the question. I asked you to clarify your remarks that you framed around the question. How you turned answering a couple of simple questions into "jumping through hoops" is beyond me.

I see. So you feel I should answer your questions before you respond to the request I made to you first.

And what about your experience with this forum makes you think this is protocol?

Answer or don't answer. It's up to you.

But your dodge speaks for itself.

 

[WildCat]

No. I'm insinuating that the abrasions were medically insignificant, and therefore insignificant in determining the nature and severity of the altercation.

Are you claiming you have to be severely injured before you're allowed to claim self defense?

 

[johnny karate]

Are you claiming you have to be severely injured before you're allowed to claim self defense?

No. I'm claiming that superficial abrasions too insignificant to be noted during a medical exam aren't evidence of a punch, let alone several.

And since you are claiming there were "multiple punches" I'm waiting for to provide evidence of that claim.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I see. So you feel I should answer your questions before you respond to the request I made to you first.

You made that request to me, really ?

Not that I can see here.

And the second time you posted it appears you addressed it to "champions of Shellie Zimmerman" and "people don't know what their opinions are without being told first."

So I wanted to know who those people were.

So if you asked me first, I guess that means you consider me a champion of Shellie Zimmerman, and someone who doesn't know what my opinion is unless I am told by another website first.

Which is incorrect, and makes me think you don't want to actually discuss these things. You'll likely just continue to ignore my responses and make more derisive comments.

 

[Mumbles]

He had just put his cellphone in his jacket pocket 30 to 60 seconds before that. How in the world do you forget where you put your cellphone 30 seconds ago?

I know lots of people are going to respond with "He was nervous, you forget things in intense situations." or "I always forget where I put things, even when I'm not in a situation like that!" or "He obviously says he reached for it instinctively, where it should be."

All 3 of those excuses would make alot more sense if we weren't talking 30 seconds here! I'm sure the treehouse type posters will believe 100% that he forgot. The justicequest type posters will believe 100% that he is lying. I think we should not believe 100% either way and ask ourselves if there is any reason he would want to say that story if it didn't happen really happen like that.

He puts his cell phone in his jacket pocket. 30 seconds goes by. He forgets where it was and instinctively reaches for it in his pants pocket? It just doesn't smell right.

So I ask myself why would he want to claim he was reaching for his pants pocket?

This convulsion is even less conclusive that the chambercheck audio comparison, but I think the odds of the prosecution claiming that Z had his gun out the whole time, or pulled up his shirt before the punch, is pretty good.

What's even more interesting is that Zimmerman, in his NEN call, states that Martin "has his hand in his waistband", indicating that he thinks that this is important and possibly threatening. And he further notes that Martin "has something in his hand" soon after this, and immediately pleads "please, just get an officer over here." And yet, he expects us to believe that *him* sticking his hands into his pants after following Martin and being confronted by him is a completely invalid reason for Martin to hit him.

Zimmerman and his supporters use this double-standard a few times to justify Zimmerman's actions in this case. We're expected to believe that Martin is suspicious because he's "walking around, looking about" and "looking at houses" (which, for reference, is exactly what people do when outside talking on a cell phone, and thus not at all suspicious), yet he explains in his re-enactment that *he* was looking at a house at the end of the T. He asks us to believe that "looking at [him]" is suspicious, yet it's fine for him to sit in his car and stare at Martin. He asks us to think that walking towards him is threatening, yet him getting out of his car and running after Martin is not at all a reason for Martin to worry about his intentions.

The only conclusion I can reach is that, by his own admission, Martin should have found Zimmerman to be extremely threatening, and thus he had a legal right to beat Zimmerman, in order to protect his own life.

ETA: If Zimmerman instinctively reached for the pocket where he normally keeps his cell phone, wouldn't he have instinctively put it in that same pocket?

 

[johnny karate]

You made that request to me, really ?

Not that I can see here.

And the second time you posted it appears you addressed it to "champions of Shellie Zimmerman" and "people don't know what their opinions are without being told first."

So I wanted to know who those people were.

So if you asked me first, I guess that means you consider me a champion of Shellie Zimmerman, and someone who doesn't know what my opinion is unless I am told by another website first.

Which is incorrect, and makes me think you don't want to actually discuss these things. You'll likely just continue to ignore my responses and make more derisive comments.

I referred you to my first request in this post.

And between the two of us, it appears I am the only one interested in discussing the actual case as opposed to irrelevant and tangential derails.

But suffice it say, your dodge has been duly noted. No need to further reiterate it.

...

Anyone else want to take a crack at it since The L8Elvis seems unwilling or unable?

Since Shellie Zimmerman is on record stating she had $10,000 in her personal bank account...

George: You're going to take out 10 and keep it with you in cash, less than 10.

Shellie: Like 9.

George: Say about 10. I'm wondering, you have more than 10, right?

Shellie: Not with me.

George: You don't have access to more than 10 in your account?

Shellie: I do.

George: I have access to... in your account.

Shellie: Yeah.

How is this...

O'Mara: Are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?

Shellie: Not that I'm aware of.

...not a lie?

 

[Cylinder]

What's even more interesting is that Zimmerman, in his NEN call, states that Martin "has his hand in his waistband", indicating that he thinks that this is important and possibly threatening. And he further notes that Martin "has something in his hand" soon after this, and immediately pleads "please, just get an officer over here." And yet, he expects us to believe that *him* sticking his hands into his pants after following Martin and being confronted by him is a completely invalid reason for Martin to hit him.

Now that's a big steaming pile.

Noone here has claimed that Martin having his hand in his waistband was reasonable provocation for Zimmerman to assault Martin. He was providing information to police. If at that point Zimmerman would have attacked Martin he would be guilty of second-degree murder and I doubt there's anyone here that would dispute that. If they do, they are just as wrong as many others here.

 

[Newtons Bit]

However, she took "10" out to keep on her. Assuming, of course, that "10" actually refers to 10,000.

But, I could understand that line of reasoning. I'll agree that is plausible.

Indeed. I don't think that the charge of perjury is a slam-dunk. The legal bar for perjury is set quite high, and there's a number of avenues for SZ and her lawyer(s) to explore in getting an acquittal.

 

[johnny karate]

Newtons Bit, you still have not substantiated the following claims:

" ...it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account and intentionally chose to keep that information from the court."

"They had in their possession phone records that talked about amounts in the fund from four days prior."

Please provide evidence for these claims.