Martin knocked down Zimmerman and allegedly pounded his head on the sidewalk

[jimmudcatgrant]

"I know far more than you do about it. And I'm able to follow the forensic reasoning as well. That puts me at least two steps ahead of you."

I don't think so, pal.  You are a legend in your own mind.  No facts, only speculation.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Martin's body wasn't the one in question, so my original question stands.

Here's your first hint: I am not obligated to answer all your questions, especially since you don't answer all of mine.  If you have a point to make about a hospital report, then by all means:  make the point.

  Don't try and evade it, just say you don't know. 

I did not evade it.
Just because you're too stupid to understand the forensics of how a fight takes place, don't expect other people to be as intellectually crippled as you are.
If a fight *had* taken place, then there would have been evidence on BOTH bodies of that incident.
The failure to find any such evidence on Martin's body is strong exculpatory evidence that he did not start any such fight, as Zimmerman claims.

Ah, but you libs always think you know more than you do.

I know far more than you do about it. And I'm able to follow the forensic reasoning as well. That puts me at least two steps ahead of you.
[/quote]

Ah, mr. forensics, care to comment on this video?

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html

Feeling ignorant yet?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

You clowns forget there is a front and back of the head.  But you are forensic experts.  Yeah, right.

 

[JrChurch]

You clowns forget there is a front and back of the head. 

That's because everyone is busy being two-faced.

 

[redgreen5]

Here we are back to square one with this wretched case.  Police video shows no signs of injury, unless you look at the enhanced video later and see signs of injury.  Doctored audio tapes, biased reporting, charges of racism, political grand-standing.  Is it really that difficult to accurately report the facts without a slant on either side?  Did either of these young men have involved parents? 

The bottom line facts remain: this man was a watch volunteer (not a "watch captain"). In most places I've lived neighborhood watch means you have some signs up and people report noticeable weirdness.  It does not mean that you stalk them from your automobile.

And if you see something wrong, you call the ACTUAL, REAL POLICE and let them handle it.  You do not go into full vigilante mode, track the person down, confront them, and then hide behind a poorly written law after you shoot and kill them.

And finally - and most importantly - the local police department did not think any of this was suspicious enough to arrest and detain the shooter.  A previous conservo-whiner wondered why this case attracted presidential commentary, while the other case (young white boy burned badly by black kids) did not.  Besides the obvious fact that someone died in this case, there is also the utter failure of the local police department to recognize the situation and detain the shooter. It was not OK to gun down an unarmed child on the street for looking 'suspicious,' and there is something very wrong with the mindset that cast him as suspicious. It would also, however, still be wrong to gun someone down in the street if they were casing houses to rob them or something. And it would still be wrong to send a guy home after gunning that person down, no matter who it is.

 

[redgreen5]

"I know far more than you do about it. And I'm able to follow the forensic reasoning as well. That puts me at least two steps ahead of you."

I don't think so, pal.

Then you're simply incorrect.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm special. It's just that you're conservative, and thus dumber than a bag of hammers.  A LOT of people are ahead of you on this point.

You are a legend in your own mind.  No facts, only speculation.

Sadly wrong.  I posted the facts.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]
Ah, mr. forensics, care to comment on this video?

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-video-shows-injury-back-head-161816389--abc-news-topstories.html[/quote]

The video shows an injury / gash to the back of Zimmerman's head.  Well done.

But as I said before:  you mean Martin fought back, and suddenly it's OK that he got shot for it?

If you were stalking someone from your car, got out of the car, followed someone around and confronted them, it's highly likely that they would take a swing at you.  People don't like being stalked and then confronted; if you wouldn't put up with it yourself, then you can't ask Trayvon Martin to put up with it.

Feeling ignorant yet?

1. Not really. That video was not available when I commented before.  And more importantly, the video was not available when you claimed he had sustained self-defense injuries.  Ergo you had no factual basis upon which to make that claim. You guessed, and got lucky.

2. Furthermore, let's not make too much out of your source. It quite clearly says:
There was no obvious sign of any injury to Zimmerman's head or face on the video until it was enhanced. But the enhanced video does not show any visible injury to Zimmerman's nose, nor any signs of blood on his shirt. Police Video Surveillance of George Zimmerman

The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and his lawyer later claimed that Zimmeran suffered a broken nose. After receiving medical attention at the scene of the shooting, it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning. He did not check into the emergency room following the police questioning.

So apparently Zimmerman's other claims are not substantiated by this video.

3. Finally, and as for my opinion now: it seems clear that Zimmerman did sustain these injuries.  Unlike a conservo-clown such as yourself, when the evidence changes, I revise my viewpoint to match the evidence.  That's probably a new experience to you.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Redgreen, here is the difference between us: I don't have to change my mind, as  I said that we didn't know all the facts right from the beginning and needed to let the process play out. I had no opinion on innocence or guilt for either party, and still don't. You immediately assumed Zimmerman guilty, was his judge and jury, and attacked anyone who thought otherwise.  Yes, you are a moron that thinks you know more than other people:  your actions speak louder than your admittance now that Zimmerman was attacked. You can't deny a video, so you admit it now, wow, congrats. You are a liberal ignoramus, face it pal.  Your ilk makes me sick, and is dangerous:  like the idiots who posted the wrong address for Zimmerman, putting an elderly couple in danger.  You just don't get it, and that is despicable.

Other than that, Happy Easter!  Need a video to prove the resurrection as well? 

 

[OZZY]

Redgreen, here is the difference between us:  I said that we didn't know all the facts right from the beginning and needed to let the process play out. I had on opinion on innocence or guilt for either party. You immediately assumed Zimmerman guilty, was his judge and jury, and attacked anyone who thought otherwise.  Yes, you are a moron that thinks you know more than other people:  your actions speaks louder than your admittance now that Zimmerman was attacked. You can't deny a video, so you admit it now, wow, congrats. You are a liberal ignoramus, face it pal.  Your ilk makes me sick, and is dangerous:  like the idiots who posted the wrong address for Zimmerman, putting an elderly couple in danger.  You just don't get it, and that is despicable.

Other than that, Happy Easter!  Need a video to prove the resurrection as well?

If he had a video he would claim it was doctored by Fox News, just to make the poor ole romans look bad.

 

[JrChurch]

Other than that, Happy Easter!  Need a video to prove the resurrection as well?

If he had a video he would claim it was doctored by Fox News, just to make the poor ole romans look bad.

At first I laughed when I saw both of these posts, but it is painfully true.

 

[The Real Bob]

RedGreen needs to wrap his brain about 1000 times with duct tape, give it 100 squirts of WD40, and then 500 wraps of baling wire.  :

 

[Bob]

"I know far more than you do about it. And I'm able to follow the forensic reasoning as well. That puts me at least two steps ahead of you."

I don't think so, pal.

Then you're simply incorrect.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm special. It's just that you're conservative, and thus dumber than a bag of hammers.   A LOT of people are ahead of you on this point.

You are a legend in your own mind.  No facts, only speculation.

Sadly wrong.  I posted the facts.

What an asinine comment.

 

[redgreen5]

Redgreen, here is the difference between us: I don't have to change my mind, as  I said that we didn't know all the facts right from the beginning and needed to let the process play out. I had no opinion on innocence or guilt for either party, and still don't.

Yes, but you're quite selective about when and how you apply this whole "wait and see" attitude.

You immediately assumed Zimmerman guilty, was his judge and jury, and attacked anyone who thought otherwise.

You can't read for comprehension, apparently.

When I entered this thread, I was responding to people who were making up ridiculous claims about Obama, liberals, etc. - basically, anyone except a fellow conservo-clown. And unlike other participants in this thread, I presented the sources for what I was saying.


I did not act as "judge and jury". What I did, however, was to show that the flimsy excuses that the rightwingers here offered  would not matter in the final analysis.  For example:
* Even if Zimmerman *was* attacked, how does that justify the initial act of stalking and how would that justify shooting someone? 
* How would that change the fact that the 911 operator point-blank told Zimmerman that the police did not need him to follow Martin? 
* How does that change the fact that "neighborhood watch" does not mean "armed vigilantes taking the law into their own hands?

Yes, you are a moron that thinks you know more than other people:  your actions speak louder than your admittance now that Zimmerman was attacked.

I *do* know more than some people. Certainly more than some people around here. But as I said before: that's a pretty low hurdle to cross.

You can't deny a video, so you admit it now, wow, congrats. You are a liberal ignoramus, face it pal.

LOL shows how little you know.
The fact that Zimmerman was injured does not mean that he was attacked.  Those two things are not the same. Zimmerman may have realized that the kid he was stalking was going to turn on him.  Then in trying to retreat, he instead fell and injured himself. That would be consistent with the other forensic data we have, which shows no wounds on Trayvon Martin's hands.  Unless you can explain how Martin hit Zimmerman in the head hard enough to make him bleed, but did not incur any wounds on his attacking hand, hmm?

You see, it's a bit more complicated than your wee little brain is allowing.   

You and I clearly have different goals.  What I'm trying to do is figure out an explanation that fits all the available evidence so far. What you're trying to do is see if you can catch me in a mistake.  Good luck.

And of course, yesterday we heard that Zimmerman has fled the state of Florida nd gone into hiding, and his attorneys have quit. 
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/47012194/

Then we hear today that Zimmerman will finallty - FINALLY - be charged with the murder.  So apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that there is sufficient evidence that Zimmerman is guilty:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57412675/zimmerman-charged-with-2nd-degree-murder/

  Your ilk makes me sick, and is dangerous:  like the idiots who posted the wrong address for Zimmerman, putting an elderly couple in danger.  You just don't get it, and that is despicable.

The dangerous ones around here are people like you and Zimmerman:  rightwingers who think that a gun solves everything.

 

[T-Bone]

"I know far more than you do about it. And I'm able to follow the forensic reasoning as well. That puts me at least two steps ahead of you."

I don't think so, pal.

Then you're simply incorrect.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm special. It's just that you're conservative, and thus dumber than a bag of hammers.   A LOT of people are ahead of you on this point.

You are a legend in your own mind.  No facts, only speculation.

Sadly wrong.  I posted the facts.

What an asinine comment.

That's the only kind of comment he is capable of.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=Bob]What an asinine comment.
[/quote]

It's no more asinine than the right-wing garbage that gets posted here.

Let's do a consistency check of your disgust:  how many times have you called down a fellow rightwinger for insulting someone who had different political views, hmm?

 

[redgreen5]

RedGreen needs to wrap his brain about 1000 times with duct tape, give it 100 squirts of WD40, and then 500 wraps of baling wire.  :

You're just pissed because I won't swallow the political nonsense you apparently are addicted to believing.

 

[Ransom]

Well, as of today, this is now an official criminal case, which means it's actually going to be tried by a jury based on facts and arguments, rather than media manipulation.

I don't have a particular opinion about the merits of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence (my gut reaction is that it will turn out to be a misunderstanding that went horribly south).  But so far on this thread, redgreen is the one that has been using facts and arguments, while the so-called "conservatives" have argued based on "RedGreen needs to wrap his brain about 1000 times with duct tape."

Which one would persuade the jury, do you suppose?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Well, as of today, this is now an official criminal case, which means it's actually going to be tried by a jury based on facts and arguments, rather than media manipulation.

I don't have a particular opinion about the merits of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence (my gut reaction is that it will turn out to be a misunderstanding that went horribly south).  But so far on this thread, redgreen is the one that has been using facts and arguments, while the so-called "conservatives" have argued based on "RedGreen needs to wrap his brain about 1000 times with duct tape."

Which one would persuade the jury, do you suppose?

Maybe the "fact" where he asserted his superiority because all conservatives were stupid.

 

[Ransom]

Maybe the "fact" where he asserted his superiority because all conservatives were stupid.

And what have you done thus far to change his perception?  I doubt whining about it to me will have the intended effect.

 

[Aviator]

Well, as of today, this is now an official criminal case, which means it's actually going to be tried by a jury based on facts and arguments, rather than media manipulation.

Not necessarily; that all depends on how jury selection goes.