• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Doctor: George Zimmerman had black eyes, broken nose but no head trauma

I can be in reasonable fear of death without a blow being struck. What the HELL are you talking about??

You're not being clear though. I think everybody agrees in some situations. If somebody breaks in your house, and is standing in your bedroom in the middle of the night... use deadly force. I wouldn't let that person near me. In other situations, it's not as obvious.... When somebody punches you in the face and breaks your nose, it's not that obvious. Cage fighters in MMA get punched in the face and get broken noses all the time, but they can still win the fight. My sister received a broken nose in the Octagon, and her friend also broke his nose... and as he says, you can get the **** beat out of you in comparison to your competitor but you can still win the fight.

Simply getting your nose broke isn't a clear indication that you have to use deadly force. If somebody is slamming a brick into your face, then it's obvious. When two drunk rednecks are slugging it out in the street, using deadly force would seem excessive if one breaks the others nose.
 
Pfft. Maybe in your world, but I don't live in your world. Zimmerman's case depends on his reliability and trustworthiness. Considering he has been caught deceiving a judge and appears to have lied about the fight, he better hope the jury is able to look past those types of things. I suppose we'll know more after the trial begins.

Pretty much everything you said is pure conjecture and not based in reality.

Get real.

The system we have....is a system of theater and even fictions masquerading as truth.

Verdicts based solely on the evidence that IS admitted, not on what the truth is
 
I would think someone who had their head repeatedly slammed into concrete would have some head trauma. If the claim was true.

If it is true that he didn't have head trauma, this, along with the bail thing, speaks to whether he resorts to lying when it is in his interest to do so. THAT is the real issue here, though it does also speak directly to whether he really thought his life was in danger.
 
If I were in a fight with a woman, and my nose was broke... I wouldn't feel it necessary to use deadly force. But if it were a strange man beating me up, I'd feel different and I would definitely use deadly force. If it were my husband or boyfriend, I'd have to really believe my life was in danger and just not use fear. It would depend on how well I knew him, but I would definitely not stay with him and would press charges.

Carrying a gun and making the decision to use deadly force requires a lot of judgement.
 
I think GZ is lying about several things... and I still don't understand how the "confrontation" happened at the T... and Trayvon's body was fifty feet south of the T.

He didn't walk us through that in the video... he didn't make that very clear
 
If I were in a fight with a woman, and my nose was broke... I wouldn't feel it necessary to use deadly force. But if it were a strange man beating me up, I'd feel different and I would definitely use deadly force. If it were my husband or boyfriend, I'd have to really believe my life was in danger and just not use fear. It would depend on how well I knew him, but I would definitely not stay with him and would press charges.

Carrying a gun and making the decision to use deadly force requires a lot of judgement.

Honestly, I agree. I think if you are just walking along and someone clocks you and jumps you then it's a different story. But if you are following/looking for someone and then a confrontation starts, you have the duty to tell that person you are armed and you should probably identify yourself as well.
 
Get real.

The system we have....is a system of theater and even fictions masquerading as truth.

Verdicts based solely on the evidence that IS admitted, not on what the truth is

Self-defense cases are not the same as regular murder trials. We know who killed the victim. The trial then becomes about the story of the defendant and his/her credibility. If Zimmerman destroyed his credibility by lying to the judge and the police about the fight, that could be a real issue for him. I am not a lawyer, and I know you aren't a lawyer, so I am not 100% sure about how this will pan out, but I do know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Honestly, I agree. I think if you are just walking along and someone clocks you and jumps you then it's a different story. But if you are following/looking for someone and then a confrontation starts, you have the duty to tell that person you are armed and you should probably identify yourself as well.

If Trayvon intended to ambush George and was lying in wait.. Trayvon would have used the can of Arizona Iced Tea as a weapon..

George's lies aare unraveling.
 
Self-defense cases are not the same as regular murder trials. We know who killed the victim. The trial then becomes about the story of the defendant and his/her credibility. If Zimmerman destroyed his credibility by lying to the judge and the police about the fight, that could be a real issue for him. I am not a lawyer, and I know you aren't a lawyer, so I am not 100% sure about how this will pan out,

Wrong

I do know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Just take a look again at the sloppily written affidavit http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf.....just another tidbit

The affidavit made a false claim about the conversation between Zim and the call taker. It states, the call taker instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin which is false

The call taker/dispatcher simply advised Zim that, he did not need to follow Martin. She never even suggested that he should not do so. This was done to characterize Zim as being a hothead...disregarding the police dispatcher in his decision to continue following Martin.

Talk about Zim's destroyed credibility....lol

Better, yet focus on the sworn lies made by the prosecution contained in the affidavit of probable cause
 
Wrong



Just take a look again at the sloppily written affidavit http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf.....just another tidbit

The affidavit made a false claim about the conversation between Zim and the call taker. It states, the call taker instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin which is false

The call taker/dispatcher simply advised Zim that, he did not need to follow Martin. She never even suggested that he should not do so. This was done to characterize Zim as being a hothead...disregarding the police dispatcher in his decision to continue following Martin.

Talk about Zim's destroyed credibility....lol

Better, yet focus on the sworn lies made by the prosecution contained in the affidavit of probable cause

Do you speak English as a second language or are you just being obtuse by pretending that "we don't need you to do that" is not equivalent to "don't do that"?
 
Wrong



Just take a look again at the sloppily written affidavit http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf.....just another tidbit

The affidavit made a false claim about the conversation between Zim and the call taker. It states, the call taker instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin which is false

The call taker/dispatcher simply advised Zim that, he did not need to follow Martin. She never even suggested that he should not do so. This was done to characterize Zim as being a hothead...disregarding the police dispatcher in his decision to continue following Martin.

Talk about Zim's destroyed credibility....lol

Better, yet focus on the sworn lies made by the prosecution contained in the affidavit of probable cause

And George tells Singleton and Serino in a taped interview that he was NOT following Trayvon, that he was merely going in the same direction. They laughed.

This is the same strategy that George and Shellie used on the judge when he asked about their fainances.
 
And George tells Singleton and Serino in a taped interview that he was NOT following Trayvon, that he was merely going in the same direction. They laughed.

This is the same strategy that George and Shellie used on the judge when he asked about their fainances.

The affidavit for probable cause for second degree murder contained a lie. This is no Tom, Dick or Harry outfit...

Its the State Attorney that should lead by example
 
The affidavit for probable cause for second degree murder contained a lie. This is no Tom, Dick or Harry outfit...

Its the State Attorney that should lead by example

How is it a lie? He interpreted the words as most of us do - a polite way of saying "No. Don't."

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it a lie.
 
Honestly, I agree. I think if you are just walking along and someone clocks you and jumps you then it's a different story. But if you are following/looking for someone and then a confrontation starts, you have the duty to tell that person you are armed and you should probably identify yourself as well.

Some people are jumped. My brother was jumped and he didn't pull a gun and shoot anybody. Wasn't Kumar recently jumped too? I know the beastie boy's guitarist was jumped, and he didn't pull a gun. And one of our DP members was injured in a riot, and I think that would be a bad situation to pull a gun out in. If you pull out a gun in a riot, then as soon as your bullets are gone, you're as good as dead. Others will see you as a threat.

Physical confrontation doesn't simply require lethal force. I don't think times have changed, just politics and lobbyists have changed and are more powerful. Perhaps gun enthusiasts and SYG defenders would say, if you're jumped, use deadly force... that's self protection. If somebody robs your house, chase them down and shoot them or stab them to death.

Punching somebody is assault and less acceptable than shooting somebody and using lethal force. Punching somebody in the face and breaking their nose today, can and will get you killed. Sounds like a barbaric, Middle Age society where people's main concern was securing their property and wealth and preventing other armed male's (armed with mostly swords in England) attacking them or raping their wives. We don't live in such by such a survivalist code today. The industrial age made living easier for humans, and less preoccupied with violence and taking other people's resources.

Why act like we should live by such a survivalist code today? The days when a childhood fight ended with a few bruises was better than kids deciding to pulls guns on each other... and joining gangs. I'd rather see kids and adults slug it out than arm themselves and have some kind of wild western gun duel.

I have heard "old timers" say it was once acceptable to just shot somebody if they walked on your property and ignored a No Trespassing sign. Somebody told me, when he was a young guy in the south with his cousin, a guy chased them fired several shots at them. He had buck shot all over his back, butt, and legs, and fell off a ledge. Somebody else in his family was actually shot (in a separate incident). He also said his family was quick to reach for their guns and pull the trigger at random people in the hills and hallers, whatever... but today, if a young kid were chased and shot at by a stranger, that stranger would be investigated and police would be notified. That's the way it should be.

I hope we have moved past those days, and I don't like the sound of a society arranged like that. Shooting at people shouldn't be a decision made casually , simply getting punched in the face and receiving a broken bone in a fight shouldn't warrant the other person an automatic death sentence at your discretion. If you shot and kill somebody over a broken nose, expect the PD to question your actions.
 
Last edited:
Some people are jumped. My brother was jumped and he didn't pull a gun and shoot anybody. Wasn't Kumar recently jumped too? I know the beastie boy's guitarist was jumped, and he didn't pull a gun. And one of our DP members was injured in a riot, and I think that would be a bad situation to pull a gun out in. If you pull out a gun in a riot, then as soon as your bullets are gone, you're as good as dead. Others will see you as a threat.

Physical confrontation doesn't simply require lethal force. I don't think times have changed, just politics and lobbyists have changed and are more powerful. Perhaps gun enthusiasts and SYG defenders would say, if you're jumped, use deadly force... that's self protection. If somebody robs your house, chase them down and shoot them or stab them to death.

Punching somebody is assault and less acceptable than shooting somebody and using lethal force. Punching somebody in the face and breaking their nose today, can and will get you killed. Sounds like a barbaric, Middle Age society where people's main concern was securing their property and wealth and preventing other armed male's (armed with mostly swords in England) attacking them or raping their wives. We don't live in such by such a survivalist code today. The industrial age made living easier for humans, and less preoccupied with violence and taking other people's resources.

Why act like we should live by such a survivalist code today? The days when a childhood fight ended with a few bruises was better than kids deciding to pulls guns on each other... and joining gangs. I'd rather see kids and adults slug it out than arm themselves and have some kind of wild western gun duel.

I have heard "old timers" say it was once acceptable to just shot somebody if they walked on your property and ignored a No Trespassing sign. Somebody told me, when he was a young guy in the south with his cousin, a guy chased them fired several shots at them. He had buck shot all over his back, butt, and legs, and fell off a ledge. Somebody else in his family was actually shot (in a separate incident). He also said his family was quick to reach for their guns and pull the trigger at random people in the hills and hallers, whatever... but today, if a young kid were chased and shot at by a stranger, that stranger would be investigated and police would be notified. That's the way it should be.

I hope we have moved past those days, and I don't like the sound of a society arranged like that. Shooting at people shouldn't be a decision made casually , simply getting punched in the face and receiving a broken bone in a fight shouldn't warrant the other person an automatic death sentence at your discretion. If you shot and kill somebody over a broken nose, expect the PD to question your actions.

Well said.. The idea that a fist fight can be won with a pistol is completely nuts.
 
Do note that Dersh cites no law nor statute.. He was granstanding..

Why Alan Dershowitz Is Completely Wrong About the Zimmerman Case | The View From LL2

About the author...

Susan Simpson is a civil litigator practicing in the Northern Virginia area. She graduated from law school at George Washington University and continues to reside in Washington, D.C., though no longer in the depths of Mordor LL2. On rare occasions, she has been known to write about things other than jurisdictional issues, in which case she will most likely write about standards of review and/or Battlestar Galactica. Her interests include trade law, international tribunal procedure, feminist jurisprudence, and Judge Posner. She can beat you in Halo.

Yet she writes that Dershowitz is wrong...lol

Alan Dershowitz credentials Alan M. Dershowitz : Biography : Detailed

PROFESSOR ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ of Harvard Law School has been described by Newsweek as "the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights." The Italian newspaper Oggi reported that he is "the best-known criminal lawyer in the world," and his law practice has been called "the most fascinating on the planet." Time magazine, in addition to including him in the cover story on the "50 Faces for the Future," called him a "legal star" and "the top lawyer of last resort in the country—a sort of judicial St. Jude." Business Week described him as "a feisty civil libertarian and one of the nation's most prominent legal educators," ABC commentator Jeffrey Toobin characterized him as "a national treasure," and Floyd Abrams, the great First Amendment lawyer, called him "an international treasure." His students have praised him as "the master of the hypothetical—answer one correctly, and he's got one in his arsenal that's guaranteed to tie your tongue in knots." He has been profiled by every major magazine ranging from Life ("iconoclast and self-appointed scourge of the criminal justice system") to Esquire ("the country's most articulate and uncompromising protector of criminal defendants") to Fortune (an "impassioned civil libertarian" who has "put up the best defense for a Dickensian lineup of suspects") to People ("defense attorney extraordinaire") to New York Magazine ("one of the country's foremost appellate lawyers") to TV Guide (one of "America's top attorneys"). He has been included on lists of America's most influential and successful lawyers as well as of influential Jews. The Forward called him, “America’s most public Jewish defender” and “Israel’s single most visible defender – the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.”
Who has more weight, here

Some trade law/feminist jurisprudence lawyer or a true criminal lawyer that specializes in criminal law?

Its not even a competition :peace
 
The affidavit for probable cause for second degree murder contained a lie. This is no Tom, Dick or Harry outfit...

Its the State Attorney that should lead by example

I believed that GZ should have been charged with aggravated assault.. but it looking more and more like GZ is guilty of murder 2.

Home

Listen to the witness statements and George's 11 interviews... George should probably plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. He has no clue as to what he did.

Years ago my middle son kicked a knife wielding new cadet in the head and threw him into the hallway. He called me to let me know that he might be kicked out of school.. I asked him... Did you stop the boy or did you punish him.. He said .. I stopped him.

Which means I would go to the mat for him.

About an hour later, I received a call from the Dean/Commandant letting me know that the boy had been expelled and my son was vindicated.

Dealing with bullies requires cold judgment.. and a rational assessment of risk. George is a drama queen.
 
I don't understand why people act like this is some mystery. They accuse Martin of things they have absolutely no evidence of and won't hold anything against Zimmerman even when it's staring them in the face!

1) We know for a fact Zimmerman was following Martin.
2) We know for a fact that Zimmerman continued towards Martin even after being asked not to.
3) We know for a fact that Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest.
4) We know that Zimmerman and his wife have been deceitful about the money they had donated to them.
5) We don't know who initiated the confrontation.
6) We don't know who started the fight - grabbing the other or throwing the first punch.
7) All of the evidence contradicts his claim of having his head smashed into the ground and being punched in the face 25 times.

Considering his entire case is based around his word and the "fear" that he felt for his life, shouldn't it be a big ****ing deal that he and his wife basically lied to a judge about their financial situation and he seems to have lied to the cops about the fight?

The fact that he allegedly lied about his financial situation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was justified in shooting TM. In fact, I would venture to guess there's some grey area there. First, if his attorney knew about this money, as an officer of the court -- if it were appropriate to use the money for bail -- the attorney would have been bound to disclose this to the judge. Attorney/Client privilege does not extend to knowingly allowing your client to lie. Second, if this money were put in a trust fund for Zimmerman's defense fund, it is possible it would have been illegal for him to use this money for bail. Third, if he hadn't yet taken possession of the money, he had no idea how much money he actually had.

Have they charged GZ with perjury? If not, there's probably good reason.
 
The affidavit for probable cause for second degree murder contained a lie. This is no Tom, Dick or Harry outfit...

Its the State Attorney that should lead by example


Do note that Dersh didn't cite a single case or statute.. Dersh was playing.. He has done that for nearly two decades. LOLOL Loves his facetime on the networks.
 
The fact that he allegedly lied about his financial situation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was justified in shooting TM. In fact, I would venture to guess there's some grey area there. First, if his attorney knew about this money, as an officer of the court -- if it were appropriate to use the money for bail -- the attorney would have been bound to disclose this to the judge. Attorney/Client privilege does not extend to knowingly allowing your client to lie. Second, if this money were put in a trust fund for Zimmerman's defense fund, it is possible it would have been illegal for him to use this money for bail. Third, if he hadn't yet taken possession of the money, he had no idea how much money he actually had.

Have they charged GZ with perjury? If not, there's probably good reason.

Trayvon never used lethal force..

Perjury? Do you have the slightest doubt that Shellie and George set out to deceive the court and their lawyer?
 
The fact that he allegedly lied about his financial situation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was justified in shooting TM. In fact, I would venture to guess there's some grey area there. First, if his attorney knew about this money, as an officer of the court -- if it were appropriate to use the money for bail -- the attorney would have been bound to disclose this to the judge. Attorney/Client privilege does not extend to knowingly allowing your client to lie. Second, if this money were put in a trust fund for Zimmerman's defense fund, it is possible it would have been illegal for him to use this money for bail. Third, if he hadn't yet taken possession of the money, he had no idea how much money he actually had.

Have they charged GZ with perjury? If not, there's probably good reason.

You're getting into a lot of grey areas. It's possible that George's attorney didn't know about the funds. At that time, Shellie did and she was transferring the money. Regardless if it was legal to use the funds for bail or not, as honest person would have disclosed the information to the judge. An honest person would have said, "we only have a defense fund but it's illegal to use the fund towards bail, so available funds for the bail amount are xyz."

And since the Zimmerman's have already paid off their credit cards and have used the money for personal living expenses, I highly doubt that the money would be illegal to use for bail. How could those funds be illegal to use for bail but not illegal to use towards paying off debts incurred before the arrest and before his legal troubles started?

The fact that they were talking in code on the phones about the money and the amount, and before his hearing, makes them look like they are deliberately and knowingly misleading the court. It doesn't look like an honest mistake to me.

And since there is confusion about the fund and what it's legally used for and not, I think the Zimmerman's and their lawyer should clear that up with the public. If you donate money to him, don't you want to know exactly what it's going to be used for and not?
 
Last edited:
You're getting into a lot of grey areas. It's possible that George's attorney didn't know about the funds. At that time, Shellie did and she was transferring the money. Regardless if it was legal to use the funds for bail or not, as honest person would have disclosed the information to the judge. An honest person would have said, "we only have a defense fund but it's illegal to use the fund towards bail, so available funds for the bail amount are xyz."

And since the Zimmerman's have already paid off their credit cards and have used the money for personal living expenses, I highly doubt that the money would be illegal to use for bail. How could those funds be illegal to use for bail but not illegal to use towards paying off debts incurred before the arrest and before his legal troubles started?

The fact that they were talking in code on the phones about the money and the amount, and before his hearing, makes them look like they are deliberately and knowingly misleading the court. It doesn't look like an honest mistake to me.

And since there is confusion about the fund and what it's legally used for and not, I think the Zimmerman's and their lawyer should clear that up with the public. If you donate money to him, don't you want to know exactly what it's going to be used for and not?

They were playing a con game.. If they didn't know the funds could legally be used for bail, they should have asked.
 
They were playing a con game.. If they didn't know the funds could legally be used for bail, they should have asked.
The prosecutor was playing a con game and not asking specific questions.
That much was clear.
 
The prosecutor was playing a con game and not asking specific questions.
That much was clear.

Yeah.. Zimmerman also claims that he wasn't "following" Trayvon.... just heading in the same direction.

Hahahahaha.. That's the sort of wiggle room you expect from a ten year old boy not from an adult male with a concealed carry license.
 
Back
Top Bottom