That picture must be forged because Danzig told me that there was no struggle. She had strong evidence too. Her evidence was that the funeral director (who works for the Martins) said that Trayvon had no bruises. LOL.

I'm sorry Danzig. I couldn't resist.[/quote]


Is there a doctor in the house....more i look at that blood pattern the more it looks painted on...I watch a lot of CSI and never saw splatter like that...but i'd like one of our resident physicians to corroborate...danz, riot, anybody...:D

But it sure doesn't support it's existence through a 43-second long struggle, as heard on the tape. It must have happened at the very end. And if his head felt painful from being bashed against the cement enough to scare him for his life, how come after the fight there is zero sign of smear from Zimmerman putting his hand up to feel the back of his head, where the pain and warm blood are?

Big, I also saw the funeral director speak that there was no bruising, cuts or signs of a fight on hands or face he had to cover.

I'm just happy an arrest was finally made. I hope it doesn't come out the police department was incompetent and screwed up any evidence, etc. as is the fear. I'm content to the let the legal process work and come to a conclusion.

The funeral director (who works for the Martin family) is hardly a credible witness. The coroner is a credible witness. I would trust the coroner's opinion. But even if the funeral director was a credible witness, his testimony is still meaningless. Why would Martin have bruises? Zimmerman's claim is that he was sucker-punched from behind and then Martin jumped on top of him and started beating him. If that is what happened, then I wouldn't expect Martin to have any bruises. The guy with the bruises would be Zimmerman. If anything, the funeral director's testimony helps to confirm Zimmerman's story.

Today after viewing that photograph, Dershowitz blasted the prosecutors even more than he did before, calling them "not only immoral, but stupid". He accused them of committing a "grave ethical violation".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...cution-immoral

There was 40-plus seconds of struggle as record on police tapes. Yes, I'd expect some physical evidence of that, on both men. And yes, we'll wait for the coroner's report.

This picture was taken by a citizen who arrived on the scene after the fight. It was not taken by the police.

Haven't read every word of the accounts of what happened but how do we know that is Z's head? or when the pic was taken...did he have a shaved head?...all these questions and no answers...:zz:

The case is supposed to be sealed now. How did that picture get out, where did ABC get it from? The prosecution? The defense? The guy that took it on his cell phone?

I would certainly think that ABC News would be smart enough to authenticate the photo before they would release it. They would lose a ton of credibility and do serious damage to their reputation if they released a photo that they did not authenticate.

The picture was supposedly taken at the scene right after the incident. This was obviously taken before the paramedics arrived and cleaned Zimmerman up.

That picture must be forged because Danzig told me that there was no struggle. She had strong evidence too. Her evidence was that the funeral director (who works for the Martins) said that Trayvon had no bruises. LOL.

I'm sorry Danzig. I couldn't resist.[/quote]

gfy.

sorry, couldn't resist.

and what i said was according to what had been put out up to that point, there was no evidence of a struggle. if the photo is real, i guess it shows otherwise...
and i didn't say there were no bruises, the funeral director did-take your beef up with him.

lol
yeah, right. you already have one network with heads rolling because of editing.

and ABC is part of the lame stream media, they wouldn't put out something they didn't check and double check and recheck...the ? is is (clinton speak) that Z's head..

Of course there was evidence of a struggle at the time you made the post. You just chose to ignore that evidence. At the time you made the post, it had been reported that Zimmerman had a broken nose. It had been reported that several witnesses at the scene including police officers said that Zimmerman's nose was bleeding and the back of his head was bleeding.

That was the evidence that we knew at the time that suggested a struggle. That was why I was so shocked when you claimed you didn't think there was any evidence of a struggle. That was when I told you that I had never heard anyone from either side claim that there was no struggle. That was when you answered that the funeral director said that Martin had no bruises on him and that was what you based your opinion on.

You can go back and re-read the posts if you don't believe me.

Zimmerman apologizes to Trayvon Martin’s parents at bail hearing

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz1sdpgC0jH

well, i'm glad you're around to tell me what i knew. :rolleyes: there's a variety of reports coming out daily. from what i had read up to that point, i'd seen nothing to suggest there'd been evidence of a struggle, which is why i put what i did. i'd also read that security camera footage at the jail showed no marks on the guys head as he'd claimed. but, i've also said more than once that it's a muddled mess, and that i doubt the guy gets found guilty at trial. but hey, whatever blows your skirt up.

I think the Zimmermans made an excellent choice in picking Mark O"Mara to be George Zimmerman's defense attorney. Some defense attorneys are confrontational, argumentative, flamboyant, and "in your face". O'Mara is not like that at all. He is quiet, low-key, and very professional. In a case like this, I think that is a very good thing.

Emotions are really high on both sides. If you had one of these loud and confrontational defense attorneys, I think that would just inflame people. O'Mara could have easily gone out there and publicly attacked the special prosecutor. But he didn't do that. He knows the facts are on his side and he knows that the truth will come out.

He handled the hearing today very well. He didn't attack the prosecution investigator at the hearing today. He just asked him a simple question. He asked him whether he had any evidence of who started the fight. The prosecution investigator responded, "No".

That was all he needed to ask. The prosecution admitted that they had no evidence of who started the fight. That means they have no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him first.

The judge will practically be forced to throw out the 2nd degree murder charge. There is a chance he may even throw out the manslaughter charge. If the prosecution has no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's contention that Martin attacked him first, then they have no case. Zimmerman had obvious and visible injuries. If you get attacked and sustain those kinds of injuries, you have a right to defend yourself. The law is very clear on that, especially in Florida.


http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com...,4802623.story

I actually hadn't read part #2 of this story. One of the prosecutors claims that Zimmerman gave 5 different statements and some of them were "inconsistent and contrary to physical evidence". I'm somewhat skeptical of this and most legal experts are too. You have to remember that even if you tell the same story 5 times, you're not going to tell the exact same story every time. You're probably going to remember new things each time. If there are major contradictions, then you are in trouble. But if you remember a few new details here and there, that is normal.

Maybe the prosecution has some damning evidence that they are holding back. Anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There was another important disclosure made today. The judge asked the prosecution investigator how close the gun was to the victim when it was fired. So close, said the investigator, that there were burns on Trayvon's sweatshirt and skin.

That is obviously an extremely significant piece of evidence.


http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com...3.story?page=2

Rupert you seem to leave out in every post that the punk wanna be cop Zimmerman was following Martin in a car and by foot, and kept following him even when told not to.

if anyone would have had reason to protect their own self, it would be Martin.

and nobody can dispute Zimmermans claim of self defense?? well maybe that is because the 2nd party in this situation is DEAD at the hands of Zimmerman. Cant really tell your side when you are buried under the earth, can you?

but no.. poor Zimmerman, has to go through all this trouble. He should have thought about that before he tried to act like a cop and follow a kid with a loaded gun.

Zimmerman is a prick. If he doesnt go to jail for even a few years, it will be a grave injustice.


It disgusts me that people stick up for Zimmerman.

maybe its just me.. but Zimmerman looks much more bald in the blood photo than any other picture i've seen of him.

from daily kos on the pic:

WHAT HASN'T CHANGED
1) Zimmerman wasn't being assaulted within fear of his life; Zimmerman was treated at the scene but was never taken to the hospital.
2) Zimmerman was culpable for the confrontation
3) Zimmerman was well-recovered enough from any "wounds" that he was able to coherently talk with officers in the station, carry himself, and that no injury was noticeable on the station cameras.

Many of us thought that the Murder 2 charge was intended so that it could be plead down to Manslaughter, vs starting with Manslaughter risked an acquittal or even lesser charge. While manslaughter seems very much still in sight, the threat of being convicted of Murder 2 if Zimmerman decides not to take a plea deal just got lessened considerably.





...and line two is the continued sticking point-it was zimmerman who followed martin, even tho he was told not to. he caused everything that happened because he took it upon himself to follow someone, to leave his vehicle, to put himself in the position he was put into. trayvon didn't cause zimmerman to put himself in (potentially) harms' way. he escalated the scene from 'i saw someone' to i'm following him, approaching him, etc. he didn't stand his ground at all. he sought a confrontation, and in doing so, a kid is dead. had he done as told, none of what followed after would have happened.

Asked the same thing when the blooded head pic surfaced...it looked doctored up to me...that's the problem with this whole affair, old pictures, sketchy info, one-sided testimony etc...too much left to speculation...his court room appearence nothing like the early photos...

I'm well aware that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car and on foot. I discussed that in several of my previous posts.

On the one hand, you could argue that Martin had the right to defend himself from some stranger who was following him. On the other hand, why didn't Martin call the police? You seem to be against vigilantiism. If you see a person following you, should you call the police or should you physically attack the person instead?

No matter what, if Zimmerman was walking back to his car and was attacked from behind, then Martin had no justification for the assault.

I will repost one of my previous posts about this subject:

Based on everything I have heard so far, Zimmerman had done a good job helping to watch the neighborhood and keep the neighborhood safe for several years. This was an unfortunate incident. Hindsight is 20/20. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Neighborhood watch programs (formal and informal) work. They reduce crime.

I highly doubt Zimmerman intended to get into any type of physical altercation. I think there is a good chance that he never intended to get within 50 yards of Martin. But he lost him on foot and at some point I think he turned a corner and found himself in close proximity to Martin. It was probably a fluke thing. We don't know for sure what happened after that. Zimmerman claims they had words but then the words ended and he was walking back to his car when he was attacked from behind.

Hindsight is 20/20 but as I said before, I highly doubt Zimmerman had any plans of getting into close proximity with Martin. If he was just some type of vigilante, why did he even bother calling the police? If he thought he was just some tough guy, he would have probably just pulled up to Martin in his car and rolled down his window and asked, "Who are you and what are you doing in this neighborhood?" But he didn't do this. He called the police. I think the whole thing was an unfortunate incident. I wouldn't recommend following someone on foot because if you lose them there is always the chance that you could end up face to face with them after turning a corner. I don't think Zimmerman ever dreamed that he would be jumped from behind (if that is in fact what happened).

I'm sure Zimmerman had followed people hundreds of times over the years (while doing his informal neigborhood watches) without incident. This incident was an aberration.

The Sanford Police Chief resigned today. But the Sanford city commisioners (by a 3-2 majority vote) have rejected his resignation. They don't want him to leave. They blame the uproar surrounding Martin's death on "outsiders".

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...180637247.html

again, I dont believe Zimmerman intentionally set out to murder Martin. Thats why I disagree with Murder 2. I think manslaughter is appropriate, though I'm no legal expert.

But Zimmerman was the instigator, he even kept following Martin after he was told not to, and a 17 year old teenager was shot dead by Zimmermans gun and Zimmerman pulled the trigger. You cant follow someone, kill someone and go unpunished.

We not debating the merits of neighborhood watch program. I'm sure they are effective when used properly. Zimmerman is a paranoid cop wanna be, I feel like he is certainly a danger to society.

No need to wait.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/2...on-ar-3659891/

thats terrible. I hope all 20 people are found and convicted of attempted murder. Send them away for life for all I care.

Reuters did an exhaustive investigation into Zimmerman. The investigation answers a lot of questions that many of you may have wondered about such as why Zimmerman got a gun, why Zimmerman was asked by neighbors to become the neighborhood watch captain, what types of incidents was Zimmerman involved with in the past in his role as neighborhood watch captain, how neighbors felt about Zimmerman, what types of crimes had been occurring in the neighborhood, what is the racial makeup of the homeowners in the neighborhood, etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425

Thank god Zimmerman does not live in my town, Ocala. Half the town would have been shot dead by now.

none of that really matters. had he not followed, ignoring the 911 operator, this thread wouldn't even exist. the shooting wouldn't have occurred.

People in neighborhood watch programs follow people every day. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It saves property and lives.

On your other point, if a police officer gives you an order, you have to follow it or there is a good chance you will get arrested. When a 911 operator advises you, "We don't need you to do that", that is advice. That is not an order. A person is not compelled by law to follow that advice.

In this case, in hindsight we know that Zimmerman should have followed the advice of the 911 operator. As you said, the incident would not have happened had Zimmerman taken the advice. Hindsight is 20/20. But I'm sure there are hundreds of similar situations that happen across the country every year, where there is a different ending. The neighborhood watch person follows the suspect until the police arrive, and the suspect ends up being arrested (because they turned out to be a criminal), or released because the police determine that there was no criminal intent on the part of the suspect.

It's easy to second-guess Zimmerman in hindsight, after you know that this was the one case in a thousand, where there was a bad ending. But what about the other thousand of cases a year (where a neighborhood watch person follows a person until the police arrive), and there is a happy ending?

bullshit. it's called neighborhood WATCH. not follow, not get out of your car, not apprehend, not play cop, just watch. he was specifically told not to follow. not only did he do so, he then left his car and followed on foot. all of it against what they told him to do, all of it not what neighborhood watch is supposed to do. you see something, you all the people trained to handle it. you don't try to handle it yourself.

Three months ago, before this incident happened, I bet that if I would have done a story about aggressive neighborhood watch programs that were cutting crime way down in their neighborhoods, I bet you would have been all for it.

If I would have told you about some neighborhoods where there was a lot of crime, that there was an aggressive neighborhood watch program where the members were armed and they followed the suspects until the police got there, and the program was really effective, I bet you would have been all for it.

When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand
 

Agree with you on the first sentence. Not sure where you're coming from in the second.

I don't live in Ocala proper, but around 15 miles away on a small horse farm in "horse country." Not much crime here, except for the occasional domestic dispute. You must be referring to the Shores, or the Forest, or maybe the area around 40 downtown.

You do know, of course, that local neighborhood watch programs are very highly regulated around town. None are armed, none are ever supposed to follow anyone, and all are supposed to report anything suspicious to the police/sheriff.

I thought you didn't like partisan news sources. You are constantly bashing Fox for being partisan but you seem to love getting news from left-wing sites. I don't get it.

With regard to this story, if this is the worst thing that ever happens in this country, I think we're in pretty good shape. I think the thousands of people getting robbed, beaten, and murdered in this country is a slightly more serious problem than what happened in this case. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding but at least nobody got hurt.

I was dog-sitting for my brother about 5 months ago. He lives about 35 miles from me. I decided to go for a run around his neighborhood. I was doing my regular run/walk when I noticed a police car following me. Then another police car came. They finally pulled in front of me and got out of their car. They said that they had gotten a couple of calls about me. They claimed that people said I appeared to be walking sort of aimlessly and it looked like I might be lost. The police wanted to know who I was, what I was doing there, etc.

I was a combination of slightly amused and slightly annoyed. Why in the world would anyone think I looked suspicious and/or menacing? I'm 5'9 and weigh 145 pounds. I guess it was just one of those things when you're in a neighborhood that you don't live. You just don't quite look like you fit in. I've never been pulled over running in my neighborhood.

Anyway, I didn't give the cops any attitude. I was extremely friendly and cooperative. I answered all their questions. I told them my name. I gave them my address. I told them what I was doing there. They thanked me and I was on my way.

I know this isn't nearly as bad as what some people go through. They didn't pull a gun on me or anything like that. But I could have still gotten mad and told them they had no right to question me. I was minding my own business. I didn't break any laws. But I didn't get mad. I figured the bottom line was that they had good intentions. They were just trying to protect the neighborhood.

I'd rather have a neighborhood where residents and police are conscientious and are looking out for the residents than a neighborhood where nobody cares.

By the way, the crimes they charged the people with in that case are a joke. They charged them with "aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal trespass". Are they kidding? Those people didn't have any criminal intent. They may be stupid and they obviously don't know the law. But they had good intentions. They thought their neighbor's house was being burglarized. Why would you charge those people with the same crimes that you would charge real criminals with, who actually break into a house with criminal intent and hold people against their will? It's absurd. They should be charged with some type of simple misdemeanor related to improper brandishing of a gun. If the Kalonjis want to sue them for $25,000 for their trouble, that would be fine too. But to charge these people as if they had criminal intent is beyond absurd.

and i bet you'd be wrong. i'm all for people defending their home, their life-i am not for vigilantes at all. you have every right to DEFEND yourself-not go after someone like some g--d--- charles bronson character from a movie.

Huh? That is exactly what he was doing. He was defending his "village". And how do we know for sure if he was acting like Charles Bronson? That seems to me like a stretch to add oomph to your point.

He has every right to defend his property and the property of his neighbors if they allow it. That's what liberty is all about.

he wasn't defending, he actively sought a confrontation with someone who was doing nothing more than walking home from a convenience store. did zimmerman know where he'd just left? no. was martin doing anything more than walking? no. since when does someone walking through your neighborhood become something to attack? what was suspicious about him being a pedestrian? what fear was engendered? exactly what life or property was zimmerman defending? and against what? a teenager armed with skittles and a drink. there was no activity until zimmerman escalated a stranger walking down the street into an issue. there was no issue until zimmerman, and his active imagination, created an issue.


i know all of the people who live in my immediate vicinity. if i see someone who isn't a neighbor, i take note. do i grab a gun? no. do i follow? no. should i? no. if they commit an overt act i would call the police and take note of what they look like, their car, what they're wearing, perhaps get a plate number if i can. but i sure wouldn't take it upon myself to judge, based on someone walking, whether they are up to no good. nor would i go after them. that is no longer defense, that's offense.

boy, you'd think a person as skilled at neighborhood watch as zimmerman would know that martin was a guest of a resident of his village. his 'village' is not his home, not his property.

yes.. shores, marion oaks, downtown, and the area I live in (475A & 312).. I've read about more violent crime in Ocala the past 5 years I've lived here than any other place I've lived. plus Ocala is robbery central. The horse farms are great and beautiful and safe! But the dense population area's are low income with a pretty good crime rate.

the past means nothing. the neighborhood watch means nothing. The dead kid is what this is all about. And taking the law into your own hands with a firearm.

It would be a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY if Martin was shot while breaking into someone's home. That wasnt the case. He was innocently walking home to his dads house, thats all. If he threw some punches because he was sticking up for himself for being followed by some cop wanna be looney toon, that still does NOT give Zimmerman the right to kill the teenager.