Jump to content


Photo

Zimmerman's Head


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:14 PM

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.
  • 0

#2 Chicopee John

Chicopee John

    Member since Sept 12, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:34 PM

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.


IMHO, a scuffle doesn't justify killing anybody.

On the other hand, nobody will ever really know what on that evening.

Zimmerman is no hero - not that many people believe he is.

On the other hand, Martin wasn't a saint.

Sad situation.

Nobody wins

Obama, Jackson, Sharpton - even my wife's Minister - should have kept their big mouths shut.

No heros. Lots of goats.
  • 0

#3 Westside Steve

Westside Steve

    Member since Sept 15, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norton Ohio

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:38 PM

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.



I watched a lot of the bail hearing this morning and I feel the same way.
I'm wondering do you think the prosecution deliberately p over charged?

Neither the prosecution nor defense deny that there was was an altercation.

Also given the political implications are you surprised at the lenitent bail?

WSS

  • 0

#4 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:40 PM

You couldn't make that kind of statement until you knew what the prosecution's case was, or what all the evidence is. Obviously, they thought they had enough evidence to make that charge.

As for the bail, I don't think the political considerations are affecting it either way.
  • 0

#5 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

IMHO, a scuffle doesn't justify killing anybody.

On the other hand, nobody will ever really know what on that evening.

Zimmerman is no hero - not that many people believe he is.

On the other hand, Martin wasn't a saint.

Sad situation.

Nobody wins

Obama, Jackson, Sharpton - even my wife's Minister - should have kept their big mouths shut.

No heros. Lots of goats.


John, what did Obama say that upset you so much? He said that if he had a kid that he'd look like Trayvon and that we should get to the bottom of what happened. What's so awful about that? What did that do?
  • 0

#6 Chicopee John

Chicopee John

    Member since Sept 12, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:10 PM

John, what did Obama say that upset you so much? He said that if he had a kid that he'd look like Trayvon and that we should get to the bottom of what happened. What's so awful about that? What did that do?


Similar to what happened with that guy in Cambridge, the President of the United States made public comments about a local case that he knew virtually nothing about at the time.

This time, he took time out to rush to judgment on another case that local authorities had control and jurisdiction.

Then his Attorney General sticks his nose into this and comments about a possible Federal Probe.

What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign.

When was the last time Obama made public comments about local law enforcement issues for a Honkey?

Do you believe somebody at his position and with his educational background should have got involved?
  • 1

#7 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:34 PM

Similar to what happened with that guy in Cambridge, the President of the United States made public comments about a local case that he knew virtually nothing about at the time.

This time, he took time out to rush to judgment on another case that local authorities had control and jurisdiction.

Then his Attorney General sticks his nose into this and comments about a possible Federal Probe.

What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign.

When was the last time Obama made public comments about local law enforcement issues for a Honkey?

Do you believe somebody at his position and with his educational background should have got involved?


Sure. He's the president. It was the most talked about news story in the country, and people were asking him about it at a news conference. He said little to nothing. I don't consider what he said "getting involved" or "fanning the flames." I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.

As for the Department of Justice looking into ia criminal matter, I don't know why that would be weird - that's what the DOJ does.

And to say that this "sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP" is bizarre. No, it didn't. The fact that a unarmed black kid got shot, and the guy who shot him wasn't arrested did that.

And let's get a grip on the NBP. There are about 8 of them in Sanford, and they're not scary. You really don't have to worry about them.
  • 0

#8 The Cysko Kid

The Cysko Kid

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bumfuck Hills, Ohio
  • Interests:Football, Music, Shooting, History, Politics, Science, Movies and arguing about any of these things.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:42 PM

No it was me not vapor. Because you were wrong though and I was right I'm sure you'd love to attribute it to your ally.
  • 0

#9 Chicopee John

Chicopee John

    Member since Sept 12, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:50 PM

I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.>>

That would have been the proper response - especially from the President and Law School Graduate.

Maybe the kid was a punk. Maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman dreamed about such a scenario. Maybe not.

I'm not worried about NBPs, nor do I worry about Jackson or Sharpton. They are comical figures, IMHO. However the media tends to give them credibility.

How about that guy in your backyard of Cambridge? Rushed to judgment on that too.

Any way, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us will lose sleep about this.


Hey, maybe Obama could have said something like these questions are inappropriate and I choose not to comment. How would that play in Roxbury?
  • 0

#10 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:02 PM

No it was me not vapor. Because you were wrong though and I was right I'm sure you'd love to attribute it to your ally.


You're right. It was you. I wasn't sure it was Vapor, which is why I wrote (I think) but I could have gone back and checked and found out that it was you.

See? Wasn't that easy?

But you should also know that I'm not reluctant to credit you with being right about something simply because we've been disagreeing on something else. That's not hard for me to do at all. You, on the other hand, seem to have a really hard time being sensible while you're angry.
  • 0

#11 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:11 PM

I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.>>

That would have been the proper response - especially from the President and Law School Graduate.

Maybe the kid was a punk. Maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman dreamed about such a scenario. Maybe not.

I'm not worried about NBPs, nor do I worry about Jackson or Sharpton. They are comical figures, IMHO. However the media tends to give them credibility.

How about that guy in your backyard of Cambridge? Rushed to judgment on that too.

Any way, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us will lose sleep about this.


Hey, maybe Obama could have said something like these questions are inappropriate and I choose not to comment. How would that play in Roxbury?


So in one thread all blacks vote for Obama because he's black. In this thread Obama has to say "inflammatory" things about the Martin case in order to get backs to vote for him. Neither are true.

But I just disagree with you. These questions aren't inappropriate for the press to ask. When someone asks the president about the biggest story in the news, the one that's captivating America, I don't mind that he expresses some sympathy for the parents - hell, Zimmerman did that today, however calculated it was - and then says that we need to get to the bottom of what happened. I think the reaction to his comments - as if they were somehow beyond the pale - says far more about the president's critics than it does about him or what he said.

I'm just saying. I think you're overreacting to the content of his remarks, which were rather benign. And you're also vastly overstating the effect that they had on the case.

Also, if Zimmerman is cleared, and people are pissed, especially in the black community, I can almost guarantee you that Obama will say that he understands the frustration, but that we need to respect the jury's decision, and then appeal for calm.
  • 0

#12 The Cysko Kid

The Cysko Kid

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bumfuck Hills, Ohio
  • Interests:Football, Music, Shooting, History, Politics, Science, Movies and arguing about any of these things.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:17 PM

You're right. It was you. I wasn't sure it was Vapor, but I could have gone back and checked and found out that it was you.

See? Wasn't that easy?


Um...no. let's forget that you were ready to fry zimmerman over that tape, and that you patronizingly told me, that the video clearly showed there was nothing wrong with him at all, even after I was able to point out a dozen reasons you were wrong, and ask do you believe it was murder 1 now? Do you?

Now tell me I was right, bitch, and you're wrong. I want to hear you say you were wrong about the tape. Uh, ok?

How's that feel? That make for a good conversation for you? Or is it just me being an asshole?
  • 0

#13 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:24 PM

Well, here's what I wrote:

"This guy claims he was beaten so badly he feared for his life, and that's why he had to shot and kill a teen. The fact that this video gives no indication whatsoever that this occurred doesn't prove anything, but suggests quite a lot. It suggests that his injuries - if he even has any - might have been so insignificant that they can't be seen on a security camera video. It suggests that there may not be any truth to his story unless he can produce other evidence that he really was violently accosted.

Or let's put it this way: which side of this case do you think would show that video in a courtroom, his defense team, or the prosecution?

So let's hear from these medics on the scene who treated all of Zimmernan's injuries. Let's see the photos that the police surely would have taken at the station.

Where are these injuries?"


And I wrote this: "Unless Zimmerman or the police can produce pictures and testimony that he'd been cleaned up and that explains why you can't see any evidence on this tape, this is pretty devastating video, and the prosecution would surely have it at its disposal."


And I wrote this: "I will yield (somewhat) to your apparent knowledge of closed circuit video cameras. Your knowledge of the rules of evidence? Not so much.

This is the best evidence yet that Zimmerman's story may not be true. Now add it to the story about how the lead prosecutor didn't believe Zimmeran's story either. And then you get to see where this prosecution would go - that Zimmerman isn't telling the truth, and that there's no evidence of the confrontation he says occured.

Another clue you should think about: What is Zimmerman's story? That he was hit only once, "with a single punch", and the rest of it was him being bashed into the pavement. Why might they go with this story? Because they've got Trayvon's body. And if he were hitting him over and over again, Trayvon would have marks and bruises on his hands.

So show me the marks on your head, where it was repeatedly bashed into the pavement. Because we can't see them on the video."


So, clearly, that's me saying this video, while not dispositive, was a great piece of evidence if the defense could produce no other evidence that he had these injuries. It's hardly me saying that "zimmerman needs to fry."

As far as you knowing that security cameras aren't precise enough to pick up treated injuries like that, that's the kind of actual information we rarely get in this forum, and I'm glad you supplied it.
  • 0

#14 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:27 PM

You were certainly right about the idea that the video isn't good enough to see everything that we needed to see to say anything with certitude.
  • 0

#15 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:29 PM

Here's me again:

I guess you'd know better than me. But compare this to what his lawyers are complaining was done to him. None of it seems to square.

There have got to be pictures of this guy taken once they got into the station. I suppose we need to wait for those to be sure.
  • 0

#16 DieHardBrownsFan

DieHardBrownsFan

    Member since Sept 18, 2006

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,099 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Royalton, Ohio
  • Interests:Browns

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:31 PM

He's innocent, and should walk. But, due to political pressure i.e. "He could be my son" said by the President of the United States, who knows what will happen.
  • 0

#17 The Cysko Kid

The Cysko Kid

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bumfuck Hills, Ohio
  • Interests:Football, Music, Shooting, History, Politics, Science, Movies and arguing about any of these things.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

So you admit the video means nothing as you refused to say after I proved to you why that was indeed true? Is it so hard to say "I'm wrong, the video is not the damning evidence I thought it was? Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am?"

No, no and no. You implied he should be convicted on that evidence. See how I'm able to put those words in your mouth and then keep doing it, like a douchebag, until you admit what I KNOW, you think, because I know you so well?
  • 0

#18 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:26 PM

Well, no. i said, and just re-posted, how I thought the video would be damning evidence if the defense could produce no other evidence of injuries. It was the earliest evidence we had - though not proof - that he wasn't substantially injured. in other words, that evidence did not prove his story; it suggested the opposite was true, and that he wasn't substantially harmed. Which is why I wrote, "let's hear from these medics on the scene who treated all of Zimmernan's injuries. Let's see the photos that the police surely would have taken at the station."

I know you think you've got me here, but you don't. Clearly, I'm saying it's evidence, but it's not dispositive, and only suggests what might have happened, and that we need more evidence.

However, you were certainly right that the video wasn't detailed or crisp enough to see the type of injuries that he apparently suffered.

But this is funny because the implication in all of this is that you are wrong in the other thread and you just don't like me pressing you to admit that you were wrong, so you're going to badger me in this one. Well, go ahead if that makes you feel better about being so drastically wrong in the other thread.
  • 0

#19 The Cysko Kid

The Cysko Kid

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bumfuck Hills, Ohio
  • Interests:Football, Music, Shooting, History, Politics, Science, Movies and arguing about any of these things.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:33 PM

Uh...No, no no. you're the one that's wrong. About the video evidence and about presuming to know what I think. You don't know what anyone thinks but yourself. How you can claim that you do and think yourself right is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard a human being say.
  • 0

#20 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:34 PM

Okey dokey.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users