• 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.

New photo released from night of shooting

dolphinocean said:
There were so many things didn't add up. For one, the officer used his personal cell-phone to take the pic and then forgot about it after downloading it onto a computer. That's his account. There were many other discrepancies. Just too many, I ain't go digging for re-harsh to beat dead horses over and over again. But, to highlight current points:

1. Zimmerman's blood/DNA not on Trayvon's hands despite Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon tried to smother him by pressing on his mouth and broken nose.
　

2. Spanky's claim of rain washing off the blood from Zimmerman's hands but blood stains were still found on skittles and flashlight.
　
VVVV


3. Look at Zimmerman's picture below, bloods on his nose and lips weren't even diluted by rain let alone washed off like it did on Trayvon if that's to be believed. They were still fresh looking, and still with well defined border.
　

4. Bloods on Zimmerman's lips and nose weren't even smeared. How's that possible if Trayvon tried to smothered him by pressing his hands on them during the struggle?


View attachment 67138896
Click to expand...
I mean Im not sure what actually happened, but it is possible for the blood to start dripping outside of the body later... what are we talking about, like a 45 seconds altercation? It is possible To punch someones nose and not get bloods on your hands, especially if you hands are lined with water and it's raining.

Your asking "how it is possible", it is in fact possible...

You seem to be going all detective here with a hint of conspiracy theory, which is cool, but detectives don't get a case until they can prove it without reasonable doubt. These are suspicions, but you can't draw conclusions and make a stances on just suspicions.
 
Grim17 said:
The question is, is there, or could there be, a logical explaination for this... I would say the answer is yes. Because there was rain, and a wet ground, I would say the possibility definitely exists that there is an explaination for this.
　


See my previous response.
　


Did it ever occur to you that it was still bleeding when the photo was taken?
　


Again, there are several possible explainations here, none of which you seem willing to even entertain.


You still did not answer my questions... Do you think the picture is a fake? Are you saying none of the injuries to Zimmerman were caused by Martin? What are you getting at... Spit it out.
Click to expand...
I don't trust the pic from the officer. So, yes, I think it was doctored.

There would be smearing or rain dilution with blood tracing below the chin, neck and front clothing. If it ever occur to you that it was still bleeding when the photo was taken, why was it not still bleeding when he reached the police station where the video was taken and the line-up pictures were subsequently taken? Just by coincidence and convenience?
 
celticwar17 said:
I mean Im not sure what actually happened, but it is possible for the blood to start dripping outside of the body later... what are we talking about, like a 45 seconds altercation? It is possible To punch someones nose and not get bloods on your hands, especially if you hands are lined with water and it's raining.

Your asking "how it is possible", it is in fact possible...

You seem to be going all detective here with a hint of conspiracy theory, which is cool, but detectives don't get a case until they can prove it without reasonable doubt. These are suspicions, but you can't draw conclusions and make a stances on just suspicions.
Click to expand...
With hands pressing and covering the broken nose that won't bleed? Not likely. Look, defending for Zimmerman by unlikely coincidence is a good throw, but not convincing nor logical.
 
spanky said:
Not if you instigated the fight and shot because you were losing.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even if you started the fight, you don't then have to let the other guy kill you.
 
Grim17 said:
Well, looks like Z got beat up pretty good.
Click to expand...

GREAT NEWS GUYS! It seems a Japanese movie director has read the Trayvon Martin sub-forum on this message board and he has actually made a film based on our posts! The director's name is Kurosawa and the film is called Rashomon
 
Grim17 said:
Geez... Good luck proving that one.
Click to expand...

Actually, if the image itself is doctored it should be fairly easy to prove. While technology makes doctoring images easier to do, it also makes it easier to detect with computer assistance.

If they used fake blood or stuffed something up his nose to look swollen that that would be much mroe difficult to prove. And no, I don't think that happened.
 
Sarcogito said:
Actually, if the image itself is doctored it should be fairly easy to prove. While technology makes doctoring images easier to do, it also makes it easier to detect with computer assistance.

If they used fake blood or stuffed something up his nose to look swollen that that would be much mroe difficult to prove. And no, I don't think that happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, from what I understand is is very easy to detect doctored photos, and I agree with you, that I don't think that's the case here either. That looks like a broken nose to me.
 
dolphinocean said:
This is my personal opinion. I can make up my own opinion based on what I see of the evidence presented so far.
Click to expand...
It seems more of just a suspicion of yours, not a full out opinion.... or at least should be.
 
dolphinocean said:
Again, non-sequitur
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws....

Bag, a can, open palm, elbow, etc , etc reasonably explains M's lack of bruising/defensive wounds on his hands
 
celticwar17 said:
It seems more of just a suspicion of yours, not a full out opinion.... or at least should be.
Click to expand...

It seems that most if not all the opinions that support Martin being the victim and Zimmerman being guilty of a crime in the death of Martin, are based on personal opinions that don't have anything concrete that support those beliefs.
 
Catawba said:
Wow, a bloody nose he wouldn't have gotten if he had stayed in his car. Yeah, somebody needed to die for that!!!
Click to expand...
Let's just say, in another unrelated example, somebody much larger than you is on top of you and screaming "I'm going to kill you!" and is beating your face in with his fist." Would you grab your gun to defend yourself before you blacked out?

That's obviously not how it happened here, but the "Oh, he only got a bloody nose" argument, doesn't really describe what would've happened had he not used his gun. What it does show is that he was attacked.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Let's just say, in another unrelated example, somebody much larger than you is on top of you and screaming "I'm going to kill you!" and is beating your face in with his fist." Would you grab your gun to defend yourself before you blacked out?

That's obviously not how it happened here, but the "Oh, he only got a bloody nose" argument, doesn't really describe what would've happened had he not used his gun. What it does show is that he was attacked.
Click to expand...

Would I shoot someone with whom I instigated a fight? No, and I don't think the court will want to set the precedent that if someone starts a fight and then start losing they have the right to shoot the other person.
 
274ina said:
God you peopel are funny, what are you saying? That T punched Z AFTER getting SHOT for justified self defence? LMAO!!!!
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying the injuries in the picture could have been caused by Martin acting justifiably in self-defense, before he was shot. That really didn't occur to you?
 
Catawba said:
Wow, a bloody nose he wouldn't have gotten if he had stayed in his car. Yeah, somebody needed to die for that!!!
Click to expand...
And he wouldn't have gotten that and all the impact abrasions if Trayvon had not acted out violently.
So between the two's actions, which one were actually wrong and against the law?
Trayvon's were.

Catawba said:
Would I shoot someone with whom I instigated a fight? No, and I don't think the court will want to set the precedent that if someone starts a fight and then start losing they have the right to shoot the other person.
Click to expand...
Taryvon being the instigator, couldn't shoot Zimmerman unless he took away his gun.

And btw it wasn't really a fight, but an attack by Trayvon upon Zimmerman that ended when the Zimmerman defended himself after the help he was calling for never came.
 
Krhazy said:
No, I'm saying the injuries in the picture could have been caused by Martin acting justifiably in self-defense, before he was shot. That really didn't occur to you?
Click to expand...
You can play what if's all day long.

But the evidence says Trayvon laid in wait until Zimmerman's back was to him, approached from the rear, verbally confronted and continued with an immediate attack. That is not self defense.
So no, it isn't possible under the known evidence.
 
Catawba said:
Would I shoot someone with whom I instigated a fight? No, and I don't think the court will want to set the precedent that if someone starts a fight and then start losing they have the right to shoot the other person.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm......The call taker instigated the fight? lol

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
 
Catawba said:
Wow, a bloody nose he wouldn't have gotten if he had stayed in his car. Yeah, somebody needed to die for that!!!
Click to expand...

Yep. If we all just stayed inside of our cars/homes then assault would stop due to a lack of victims to be beaten.
 
ric27 said:
Hmmmm......The call taker instigated the fight? lol

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Click to expand...

Where does it say "follow"? Or even "Please exit your vehicle and proceed to go in the same direction":lamo
 
Excon said:
You can play what if's all day long.

But the evidence says Trayvon laid in wait until Zimmerman's back was to him, approached from the rear, verbally confronted and continued with an immediate attack. That is not self defense.
So no, it isn't possible under the known evidence.
Click to expand...
I have not heard of any eye-witness recounting as to what/who instigated the scuffle. Which would make sense as most of them would have been draw by the shouting and gunshots and thus only taken notice after the fight was already in progress. Your statements above appear to be directly taken from Zimmerman's own account -- a highly questionable source. Zimmerman has a history of aggression, getting fired from jobs because of his temper, accused of road rage. domestic violence, and stalking people, and being charged with assaulting a police officer. His story to police regarding this incident has morphed over time, and there are accusations that he has manipulated stories to the police in the past. A jury could certainly decide he is not credible. Depending on what other evidence is presented, they could also reasonably conclude he was the one who instigated the fight. They could also decide there is reasonable doubt.

At this point, we should not be making judgments about what is or is not possible.
 
Krhazy said:
I have not heard of any eye-witness recounting as to what/who instigated the scuffle. Which would make sense as most of them would have been draw by the shouting and gunshots and thus only taken notice after the fight was already in progress. Your statements above appear to be directly taken from Zimmerman's own account -- a highly questionable source. Zimmerman has a history of aggression, getting fired from jobs because of his temper, accused of road rage. domestic violence, and stalking people, and being charged with assaulting a police officer. His story to police regarding this incident has morphed over time, and there are accusations that he has manipulated stories to the police in the past. A jury could certainly decide he is not credible. Depending on what other evidence is presented, they could also reasonably conclude he was the one who instigated the fight. They could also decide there is reasonable doubt.

At this point, we should not be making judgments about what is or is not possible.
Click to expand...
:doh Holy ****! Not!



Krhazy said:
Your statements above appear to be directly taken from Zimmerman's own account -- a highly questionable source.
Click to expand...
Whether you like it or not, Zimmerman's account is evidence.

And when one considered the circumstances surrounding his account it is very believable.
He cooperated from the get and continued to do so.
He passed lie detection efforts.
He did not break under intense interrogation.

And one of the most important things, he had no idea who saw or heard what, or if anybody did at all. And yet, his story still matched up with theirs.

Yes, his story is very credible and not "highly questionable" as you suggest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom