Did Police and Paramedics Conspire to Invent George Zimmerman's Injuries?


Many people suspect that George Zimmerman, in seeking to justify shooting Trayvon Martin, exaggerated the threat posed by the unarmed teenager. But the attorneys hired by Martin's family have a history of exaggeration as well. One of them, Natalie Jackson, declared, based on the recording of a 911 call made during the fight between Zimmerman and Martin, "It is so clear that this was a 17-year-old boy pleading for his life, and someone shot him in cold blood." Zimmerman claimed the cries cited by Jackson were his own, not Martin's, and a witness backed him up. The same witness confirmed that the fatal shot was fired in the midst of a violent struggle, apparently when Martin was on top of Zimmerman—i.e., in the heat of the moment, not in cold blood. Another lawyer for the family, Benjamin Crump, said the testimony of Martin's girlfriend, who was talking to him on his cellphone right before the fight, "completely blows Zimmerman's absurd self-defense claim out of the water." It doesn't. Most crucially, her account does not resolve the question of who started the fight, let alone the question of whether Zimmerman (who claimed Martin tried to grab his gun) reasonably feared for his life and had no feasible means of escape. This pattern of hyperbole continues with the lawyers' tendentious interpretation of security camera footage (below) showing cops bringing a handcuffed Zimmerman into the police station, which ABC News aired last night (and Mike Riggs noted this morning).

"An attorney for the teen's family said it looks to him that Zimmerman doesn't have injuries to his face and head in the video as Zimmerman's supporters have described," A.P. reports. Those injuries—a bloody nose and a cut on the back of Zimmerman's head—were described not just by his "supporters" but by police officers who said they saw them. It is true that no blood or injuries are discernible in the video, which is fuzzy but shows the back of Zimmerman's head a few times and includes a pretty clear image of his face as he walks through a door at the 1:25 mark. But since "he was tended at the scene by paramedics but told them he did not need to go to a hospital," as The Orlando Sentinel reports, that is hardly surprising. Any wounds presumably would have been cleaned up by the time Zimmerman got to the police station. According to A.P., Zimmerman's lawyer "said the gash on the back of Zimmerman's head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing." The most that can be said based on the video is that Zimmerman's wounds were not severe enough to be visible in grainy security footage, a point reinforced by the fact that he declined to go to the hospital. But here is what Crump had to say:

This certainly doesn't look like a man who police said had his nose broken and his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk. George Zimmerman has no apparent injuries in this video, which dramatically contradicts his version of the events of February 26.

It does not really contradict Zimmerman's version of events. Although the apparent mildness of his injuries may reinforce the impression that he overreacted, it is still possible that Zimmerman reasonably feared severe injury or death, especially since he said that Martin tried to take away his gun. By casting doubt on whether Zimmerman really had the injuries police reported and paramedics treated, Crump implies an official conspiracy to make up details supportive of Zimmerman's account. Although there are good reasons to question the thoroughness of the police investigation and the decision by the state attorney's office not to charge Zimmerman, there is no evidence that Sanford police—whose lead investigator, Chris Serino, reportedly wanted to arrest Zimmerman—were so eager to absolve him that they falsified their records.

Addendum: In an interview with WOFL, the Fox station in Orlando, Zimmerman's father says the neighborhood watch volunteer deemed Martin suspicious because he was walking in the rain between townhouses, instead of on the street or the sidewalk. He adds that Zimmerman kept following Martin after the police dispatcher suggested that he stop because he wanted to get an address from one of the houses so he would know where exactly he was in the development.

NEXT: Remy: Health Care Mandates vs Pizza Toppings

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don't see wads of cotton shoved in his nostrils. Ever notice what color cotton is, btw?

    1. How, again, is this anything other than a sensational(ist) story, unbefitting of continued philosophical (such as it is) scrutiny; i.e., how did this fairly run-of-the-mill shooting death become a libertarian issue?

      1. Because it's not really the shooter on trial in the media. It's the stand your ground law. We should count on the people in charge to protect us, not ourselves.

        1. It's the stand your ground law

          Seems like less. A lot less.

          1. there are few more important things to a libertarian than individual rights, and the right of the individual to defend himself is near the top of the list.

            i realize most anti-cop bigots here like to believe that when a cop shoots somebody, it's always a double standard bla bla but setting that aside, self defense is self defense

            this issue is all about self defense

            in a system where self defense is respected and where the underling cj theory is that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent is convicted, it is certainly possible that one could claim self defense WHEN THAT'S NOT THE ACTUAL CASE and get away with it , either avoiding conviction, or even charging

            ultimately, the burden is on THE STATE in many states (including fl and wa) to disprove self defense, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

            1. imnsho, libertarians should support that concept vs. those states where the burden is on the defendant to establish a self defense case.

              however, the law is always about tradeoffs. and if you have a system where self defense must be disproved by the state, you necessarily WILL have more people 'get away' with killing people when they in fact didn't do it in self defense

              and of course if you support the concept of self defense (and defense of others) you extent that to cops, too

    2. Cotton? COTTON?! You racist piece of shit.

    3. Ever think that Zimmerman might have picked his own cotton ... out of his nose?

  2. Jesus. Can't we wait for the investigation and the inevitable trial? All of the mad public speculation with incomplete information is like Nancy Grace writ large.

    1. My theory is that Zimmerman is actually dead and Trayvon Martin is Obama's son.

      Let's discuss.

      1. David and Elaine McClain are Obama's real parents.

        1. They changed the spelling of their name from McClane to McClain to cover up the fact that Obama had a twin brother John McClane. That John McClane.

      2. Also, Zimmerman was really Andrew Breitbart. He had evidence that Trayvon Martin was the illegitimate son of Barack Obams, which is why he was killed.

    2. Yah but Nancy Grace is hot and the more face time the better. I love to hear her voice also and that broad can dance!

      1. ""Yah but Nancy Grace is hot..""

        You really need to get out more often.

      2. Yah but Nancy Grace is hot

        Wait, what?

        1. Someone must have set her on fire.

      3. See, you're making the best case for legalized euthanasia I've ever heard. Some people just need to be put out of their misery.

      4. Yah but Nancy Grace is hot

        WTF is wrong with you??? That woman single-handedly nullfies and and interferes with electronic/electromagnetic signals with her mere presence. This woman is a walking EMP and should be dropped in either Iran or China as a preemptive offensive (in every sense of the word) strike. She didn't tangle with an ugly stick, she met the whole tree forcibly at high velocity.

        1. It's what's inside that counts. And that's even uglier.

      5. Who is Nancy Grace? And I'm serious.

    3. Fuck you, you think you're too good to have an old-fashioned pants-shitting freakout over this? Besides, this gives a great opportunity to demonstrate how evil out KULTUR WAR enemies are.

      1. Nancy Grace. If we're becoming Nancy Grace, I'm fucking moving to New Zealand.


          1. You lie! You lie! [Runs from room, sobbing like a little girl.]


            2. That sobbing you heard was Martin, not Pro Libertate.

          2. what?

            1. Mommy, who are you talking to?

    4. Seriously. When did Reason start beating every popular story into the ground like this?

      1. Eh, close enough. Drink!

        And they've been doing this a lot. I'm ok with it. They get lots of page views.

        1. I'm glad (usually) that it generates page views for Reason and I think they've done a much better job of covering all aspects of this case than the rest of the media. But, I've personally reach my saturation point. Also this

          1. Re: Peace March for Trayvon

            Will Kenny fuckin' Powers be there?

            1. If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.

              1. If I had a gardener, he'd look like George Zimmerman.

        2. Me too- come for the media circus, stay for the enlightenment. It's worked in Revival tents for decades.

      2. Yeah, Reason never beats stories into the ground.

        Say, did you guys hear about that mosque at ground zero?

        1. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing about some book that Matt and Nick wrote. Declaration of something.

        2. Or that former governor from Alaska, Sarah something-or-other


          1. Rush 2112!

            1. The congressman, the band or the radio guy?

              1. twenty ONE twelve...

      3. When Obama got elected, or when Matt Welch took over, take your pick, or could be both. This magazine has gone downhill in their pursuit of disgruntled FreeRepublic readers, and other Tea Parties.

        1. This magazine has gone downhill in their pursuit of disgruntled FreeRepublic readers, and other Tea Parties.

          When I first read this comment I thought you nailed it. But really, right-leaning libertarians are part of our big tent and do add to our overall message.

      4. "Seriously. When did Reason start beating every popular story into the ground like this?"
        They do it all the time. if an issue goes viral the run that fucker into the ground.
        Reason is probably behind all the goofy ass "trolls" to throw red meat to the bourgeoisie.

    5. "All of the mad public speculation with incomplete information is like Nancy Grace writ large."


      The cherry on top? Sharpton, Jackson and the NBP weighing in.

      1. That NBP guy on the news the other night sounded like a moron.

        1. Which is odd, because normally racial supremacists are thoughtful individuals.

          1. What I meant was, and this is from my wife who actually watched it, the guy basically said the US Constitution gives them the right to make a citizens arrest of Zimmerman and then a few minutes later claimed the laws of the US do not apply to black men because they don't protect black men.

            1. that's called jury nullification

    6. All of the mad public speculation with incomplete information is like Nancy Grace writ large.

      Well, I agree. But keep in mind there wasn't going to be an investigation or trial until the case got some publicity.

      1. There was an investigation, and it concluded with the authorities deciding there shouldn't be a trial.

        The ensuing moral panic isn't due to a lack of investigation, but due to interested parties not liking the outcome of the investigation.

        1. Excellent!


          1. +1

            I'll double down on summer trial with Zimmerman being cleared. Maybe during a heatwave... ahh to be back in LA during 1943, 1965 or 1992 again.

    7. Jesus. Can't we wait for the investigation and the inevitable trial? All of the mad public speculation with incomplete information is like Nancy Grace writ large.

      I'm embarrassed for you right now.

      1. What, because I mentioned She-Who-Should-Not-Be-Mentioned?

        1. Duh. Because you're complaining about a little online-trial-sans-real-facts. TAKE THAT KIND OF THING AWAY AND THE INTERNET CEASES TO EXIST.

          Also, Nancy Grace is a national treasure. She got that Van Der Sloot put away for life or whatever. Maybe that was Greta. I forget.

          1. That's not the same person?

            Guess I need to watch more TV. Right after I un-cancel cable. Which will be never.

    8. I'm beginning to doubt this will go to trial.

      Zimmerman's story as repeated by his father sounds reasonable and explains a number of things. If the calls to police and 911 back that up (he couldn't give them the address, etc.) and the physical evidence back that up (police witnessing cuts, etc.), then it's very unlikely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin in self-defense.

      Seeing that evidence, I can see why the prosecutors said they wouldn't have much of a case.

      It's probably enough to take it to a Grand Jury, but this might be one of those rare cases where the GJ doesn't think there is enough evidence to indict.

      1. Oh they'll indict. Only question now is what will they call the riots this time. See also 1943, 1965 and 1992.

        Bad economy + hot day + unpopular court decision = burnin' an' a lootin' tonight.

        1. Something like 99% of Grand Juries do indict.

          It just looks like an extremely thin case to argue beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see why the prosecutors said no way.

          I probably wouldn't indict on the evidence I've seen.

  3. In other words, this sounds like a good thing to try by jury.

    1. Which is what Martin's family has been asking for day 1.

      1. As well they should. I'd fucking demand it myself if I were them.

        1. Except, if the State doesn't have enough evidence to go to trial.

          Well, they could go and just hand the verdict to the Defense, I suppose. Double Jeopardy FTW, anyone?

          1. Ya need something to spark the race war- helter skelter failed miserably.

        2. I would too. Sooner or later someone would offer them a book deal.

    2. Again, looking at Zimmerman's statements and if those are all backed up by evidence, then it's hard to see taking that to court.

  4. We need tougher hoodie control laws, if hoodies were outlawed Trayvon would be alive today!

    1. ^^THIS^^

      What do civilians "need" hoodies for, anyway?

      1. Especially in South Florida where it is 70 degrees in March.

    2. Looks more like Twitter can bring out the inner G.

  5. It's hard to tell about any wound to the back of his head from that video. But his nose does seem swollen.

    1. Are you saying all white-latinos have big noses?!??? RACIST!!!!

    2. Are you saying all white-latinos have big noses? What a racist comment.

      1. No, he is saying that the fight turned him Jewish.

      2. No, he is saying that the fight turned him Jewish.

        1. He was already half-Jewish. The white half. The part that puts guacamole on gefilte fish.

  6. Crump implies an official conspiracy to make up details supportive of Zimmerman's account.

    It's what they would have done for a cop.

    I'm a little skeptical they'd do it for Zimmerman, though. If they were going to do that, why not just go the whole hog and plant a drop piece on Martin? I'm sure at least one of the cops present would have had one.

    1. Maybe professional courtesy extends to the children of retired magistrate judges/enthusiastic copsuckers.

    2. I doubt they would either, and not just because Zimmerman is a non-cop. Zimmerman made a ridiculous number of 911 calls in the last year and I am betting that put him on the 'pain in the ass' list, which he clearly belongs on. C'mon, he called 911 because he saw a guy walking around.

      1. He'd have had more cause to call 911 if he was a teenage girl and someone offered him a ride.

      2. listen to the other calls Zimmerman made- he reported potholes, trash, and suspicious black men...

      3. Actually he called the non-emergency number. Next-

      4. Zimmerman made 46 911 calls in the last ten years.

        "From January 2011 to February 2012 records show there were 402 calls to police from that neighborhood, five were about burglaries, but a majority of the calls were about disturbances."

        Looks like Zimmerman made between 1% and 2% of the total 911 calls from his neighborhood. Considering he was involved in the neighborhood watch, 'ridiculous' is not a word I would use to describe that.

    3. The officers will not be charged with felonies for lying under oath, they will keep their jobs, and they will do this again. Only now they will make it a habit to look for cell phones before they intimidate and harass innocent people.

      And if Zimmerman killed a cop under the exact same circumstances that he killed Martin, the question would not be whether he will be arrested, but whether he will face the death penalty.

      1. Funny enough, one of his previous arrests was for assaulting a police officer, which he pleaded self defense there too, charges were dropped- thanks dad!

        1. Gotta go with what works. These are the same cops that are covering up for him now. They must have really liked that they got their ass handed to them and couldn't wait to let him skate on a murder beef.

  7. That grainy video hours after the event is supposed to prove anything?

    1. Zimmerman is Bigfoot?

      1. Zimmerman is STEVE SMITH?


  8. At this point, I think we can all agree that when an armed person (not on his own property or in his own car) shoots an unarmed stranger, its probably best to let the grand jury decide whether or not there is probable cause to go forward with murder/manslaughter. I'm pretty certain the FL state attorneys' offices are hearing this message loud and clear.

    1. I don't get it. Why did they rush to close the case? There's a deadly shooting involved, so getting a little more evidence you'd think would be par for the course. I think they'd have ended up reopening it, anyway, without the public outcry, as the evidence is, at the very least, inconclusive. Except for the part that a kid got shot to death. Which means deep investigation, if you ask me.

      1. I curious as to why Z was handcuffed. My observation is based on a single case I know of but I don't believe that the police hancuff people unless they are actually under arrest or otherwise perceived to be a threat.

        I'm beginning to suspect that the rank and file officers did not believe it was self defense and were overuled by their superiors. That is also borne out by the fact that the lead investigator did recommend an arrest.

        On the other hand, as I have said before, the State Attorney's reluctance to OK an arrest may have simply been based on their not feeling there was a strong enough case and wanting to let the investigation proceed further before an arrest. Maybe the Sanford PD bosses interpretted this as indifference.

        1. I am not a cop, but I would think if there was a shooting you would restrain(handcuffs, bars) the shooter until a descision had been made on whether to charge him. This would err on the side of safety, for the officer, the suspect, and the public.

      2. Could it be that there was some external influence to hire a bunch of lawyers and PR people to craft a narrative to feed to the media for what would otherwise be a relatively routine and open-and shut case. I mean if this were an election year someone might do something like that... oh wait.

    2. Only when there's a racial disparity between those involved, Brett. If this was black on black, hispanic on hispanic, or even white on white, we'd have barely heard a peep out of anyone outside of Sanford.

      1. We hear about white on white cases all the time. Especially if the victim was a white women or child.

        1. an attractive white women, the ugly ones get no attention

          1. Especially the ones with huge.... tracts of land.

    3. There a reason for the cliche that "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich" as you merely need evidence to convice 12 of 23 grand jurors that a crime has been committed. All the evidence you need is identity of shooter and ballistic evidence from the confiscated gun. It is not necessary to provide exculpatory evidence--nor all of the know evidence--merely that which is sufficient to return an indictment. So it is not correct that it is best to let the grand jury decide.

    4. Under Florida law, if the authorities arrest someone who later successfully claims self-defense, the authorities are subjected to legal penalties.

      1. Really? Not disputing you, do you have a link to support that claim?

        1. I find it unlikely, unless someone is confusing "detain", "arrest", and "charge"

  9. Great point that it is unlikely a police department that wanted Zimmerman prosecuted would have twisted the evidence to make him look innocent.

    1. It's a complicated conspiracy.

  10. "" Any wounds presumably would have been cleaned up by the time Zimmerman got to the police station.""

    EMS doesn't just clean it up, they patch it too. I don't see butterfly tape or a bandaid. Part of cleaning a wound is protecting it from bacteria.

    1. There's a moment where a cop reaches around the back of dude's head in a way that could signify "Where'd the band-aid thing that was on your head go? There's shit coming out." In the few frames where the color in the back of his head hasn't been averaged to beige during compression, it looks like there's some shit on the back of his head.

      Of course that gesture is far more likely to be a kind of secret Latin/Aryan Brotherhood fist-bump that means "Fuck yeah, coon blood for Palin, my fellow crackalacka. You'll be out in five minutes."

      1. When Newt Gingrich says something stupid, or when Mitt Romney says nothing at all, people will make of innocent African-American kids a blood sacrifice to Sarah Palin.

  11. According to A.P., Zimmerman's lawyer "said the gash on the back of Zimmerman's head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing." 

    As a doctor, that's nonsense.

    1. Zimmerman has a healing factor

      Plus, you just talked yourself out a sweet "expert witness" payday.

    2. As a non-doctor who has had a number of lacerations, treated and untreated, stitched and unstitched, it is not nonsense. Don't confuse official AMA recommendations and your standardized training with what the human body is capable of.

  12. The word apologist comes to mind after reading this. Anyone who has scalp cuts and a busted nose bleeds profusely, and unless he was showered and given a change of clothes at the scene ...

    1. Broken noses do not always bleed, profusely or otherwise. It depends entirely on the type of break.

      1. Open scalp wounds bleed like a mofo.

    2. No bandages, no gloves on the cops, i doubt if the cops would clean him up,but if there was any blood or chance of bleeding wouldn't somebody be wearing gloves.

      But anyways, i love the depths that folks on here are sinking to in order to cover for the shooter. Very interesting, nope, no racism here!

      1. You're confusing racism with skepticism and critical examination of independently verifiable facts.

  13. At this juncture, what really happened is completely inconsequential. I recently found myself unable to bring the subject up because I knew that one of my black colleagues would be offended. Even though there is so much humor in the over-reaction, I know that she, and most other black people cannot discuss the NancyGraceAlSharptonnuttiness of it all. It is not an incident. It is a cause. Sad. Very sad.

    1. Pretty consequential to Trayvon I would think.

      1. More consequential to Zimmerman actually. Trayvon's life no longer has consequence.

  14. Man, that's one not-white-looking white Hispanic!

    1. Are you kidding me? He looks like Edward Norton in American History X. Let's fry this obvious racist.

  15. Where's the time stamps? Police station video without? Seems odd.

  16. The same witness confirmed that the fatal shot was fired in the midst of a violent struggle, apparently when Martin was on top of Zimmerman

    I have never shot a guy that was on top of me before, so this is speculation based on basic physics and biology, but wouldn't a gunshot wound from point blank range bleed a shitload onto the guy on the bottom? Wouldn't that have seeped into Zimmerman's clothes?

    1. Don't you watch movies? The gunshot blast would have sent Martin flying at least 10 feet before he then started bleeding from his mouth.

      1. Depends on the movie. In a PG movie, there would only be a red spot on Martin's shirt without even a hole visible.

    2. Didn't the witnesses say that Martin was face down after the shooting? So Zimmermann rolls a dead body off of himself then turns that body face down?

      1. Or he just scoots backwards, leaving Martin's body where it fell.

    3. Small hole going in the front. Big hole in the back, if Zimmerman used a hollowpoint. Martin's blood could have been caught by his hoodie and any shirts he had on under it.

  17. Look carefully at the footage. it's been altered. the back of his head where cuts might be has been blurred and the blur is poorly tracking that area of his head. ABC shame on you.

    1. I wondered about that. Then I dismissed the possibility because ABC is one of the networks that survives from the golden age of tv journalism when biases were stringently avoided.

  18. The father also claims Martin told Zimmerman "something to the effect of, 'You're going to die now,' or, 'You're going to die tonight,'"

    And if Martin was walking between houses, that would confirm Zimmerman's suspicion that he looked up to no good.

    Again, though - one side of the story.

    1. Evidence is gathering. If there's a trial, a jury can assess the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses. There's enough right now for things to go either way, keeping in mind that Zimmerman has a major advantage--like all criminal defendants--given the burden the state has to overcome.

    2. The father also claims Martin told Zimmerman "something to the effect of, 'You're going to die now,' or, 'You're going to die tonight,'"

      You'd think what with having his own son attacked right in front of him, Zimmerman's father would have jumped in to help.

      Oh wait... you mean Zimmerman's father wasn't there that night at all?

      1. ???

        Yes, obviously Zimmerman was mugged in the middle of a crowded street with hundreds of eyewitnesses that can corroborate his version of events.

        Oh mean there weren't many eyewitnesses, so we have to rely on information leaking from both sides because the police haven't revealed very much publicly?

        1. I meant that Zimmerman's father's statements are being reported as if he directly witnessed the events he's describing, rather than just recounting Zimmerman's self-serving version of the events.

          1. It's another part of Zimmerman's story we haven't heard yet (or at least hasn't been widely reported.) If Martin threatened to kill him while beating him, I'd say it justifies the self-defense claim. Not saying it's what actually happened.

            I'm sure the police/the DA are watching to make sure Zimmerman's side doesn't make statements that contradict his original statement.

          2. Kinda funny- Martin's girlfriends statements are being treated the same way.

  19. George Zimmerman :: The New White

    1. Wow, you are totally, like, even dumberer than me!

  20. OmniPoll:
    Did George Zimmerman kill Trayon Martin out of self defense?
    a) YES
    b) NO
    c) HELL YES
    d) HELLS NO

    Please answer in the form of an off-topic rant.

    1. Uh, I think many of us are definitely maybes.

    2. Zimmerman is basically OJ: I'm pretty sure he's guilty as sin, but will probably get away with it because the police screwed up the investigation so badly that it will be impossible to prove in court.

      1. Much of his version of the story can be confirmed or disproved with the police calls and witness testimony.

        He's either lying or he's telling the truth. If his story matches most of the evidence (calls, witnesses, injuries), then it's difficult to argue that he was lying.

        1. Much of his version of the story can be confirmed or disproved with the police calls and witness testimony.

          Not any of the important details: that he got out of his car because he didn't know where he was, that Martin approached him, that Martin punched him without provocation, that he only pulled the gun after Martin had him on the ground and was pummeling him, etc.

          1. Actually the part about him getting out of the car because he didn't know the address probably is on the tapes (at least if they record non-emergency calls).

            Much of the rest is unknown (unless there are witnesses), but it does appear that Zimmerman had injuries and he was on the ground at some point.

    3. As I see it Zimmer put himself in a situation where he provoked an angry youth who into starting a fight, and being outmatched and in a panic he shot the guy.

      Could the situation have been avoided? HELL YES
      Was the kid justified in picking a fight? NO
      Was it self defense? very weak yes

      1. That's about how it seems to me at this point, based on what we "know."

      2. No blood for Skittles!

        1. That's "Skittles?"!

      3. Was the kid justified in picking a fight? NO

        Still don't know definitively how the fight started. Zimmerman's account is self-serving and anonymous witnesses are anonymous (as in, one step above a jailhouse snitch).

        1. It makes more sense to me that the kid, pissed about being followed, would take the first swing. Especially when you add into context the trash the kid was spewing on Twitter. Seems like a typical punk ass wannabe gangsta thug.

          But yes. We don't know definitively.

          1. Of course, it is vulgar to refer to 'education' as an 'industry' and 'students' as 'costumers,' right?.

            I don't know how long it's been since you were a YUTH, but they pretty much all think they are badasses, right up until you kick'em in the pebbles or jab'em in the throat. As far as I've heard, the actual extent of his "gangsta" activity involved writing on lockers and smoking marijuana.

            Regular menace to society, that one.

            1. As far as I've heard...

              There's more. I'm too lazy to try to find it and link it for you, but if you are interested you should be able to find it without much trouble.

              Something about suggesting someone shoot somebody, and his taking a swing at the bus driver.

              It's that last one that caught my attention. Suggests he was in that "taking a swing at anyone who pisses him off" phase, and this time took a swing at someone with a gun.

              1. Something about suggesting someone shoot somebody, and his taking a swing at the bus driver.

                The first I've seen, and it was "Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!" (Silly rabbit! Twitter is for twatter!) No one knows who it was intended for or if it was serious. As for the swinging at bus drivers, the school should have record of it as bus drivers are required to make a report of any incident of violence that takes place on their bus.

                Like I said, I don't take teenagers at their word as to how big of badasses they are.

                Martin's Tweets

                this time took a swing at someone with a gun.

                Spec. U. La. Tion.

            2. Regular menace to society, that one.

              That's why I said "wannabe".

              1. That's why I said "wannabe".

                Contrast to George Zimmerman who has a documented history of violence (he enjoys throwing hands at cops when not fellating them).

  21. I think this is very important news

  22. HELLLO!
    My probation ended, but I'll probably be back in jail within the week.

    1. You baby I got a crack and a bottle of vodka that says you can be back in jail tomorrow night!

  23. I wasn't there but it was clearly an assassination. Meanwhile three black youth were shot to death in my city over the weekend - just like most weekends - but, hell, I'd rather opine on things in Florida than do something about the black on black violence in Philly.

    1. And is a huge block of the Republican base claiming the murders in Philadelphia were in fact legal and that the shooters should be given medals?

      1. There is no Republican base in Philadelphia. We run them all outta town.

  24. "Zimmerman claimed the cries cited by Jackson were his own, not Martin's, and a witness backed him up."

    Of course, other witnesses say it was Trayvon, and also say police 'corrected' their version of events.

  25. According to A.P., Zimmerman's lawyer "said the gash on the back of Zimmerman's head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing."

    Zimmerman is secretly Wolverine?

    1. It's like morning links all over again.

      1. AM links are posted around 6 AM Pacific time, so I always miss them.

  26. via Instapundit:
    Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

    March 29, 2012
    Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury
    Published: 12:17 AM 03/29/2012
    Email This Article
    Print This Article
    By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
    Bio | Archive | Email Matthew Boyle
    Follow Matthew Boyle Get Matthew Boyle Feed

    Surveillance video of George Zimmerman arriving at a Sanford, Fla. police station indicates what may be an injury to the back of his head, a Daily Caller analysis shows.

    1. sorry for the extra paste garbage

  27. Were are well into the diminishing returns now, but:

    Paramedics who have a patient claiming to have had his head bashed into the pavement several times during a violent assault, with an open wound on the scalp, are most likely to take that patient to the ER for a bit of a workup on possible cranial trauma, concussion, etc.

    Not saying it proves anything one way or another, just that the fact this did not happen would tend to support the notion that the ferocity of Trayvon's assault and the damage suffered by Zimmerman may have been subsequently exaggerated.

    1. Z, iirc, refused, no?

      1. Did he? I haven't seen that.

        But, even if he refused, that's not exactly consistent with the story now being told of a brutal assault Trayvon, leading to seriousish injuries and the reasonable fear of imminent death, etc.

        I mean, if you're getting beaten bad enough to justify killing your assailant, it just strikes me as odd that you would tell the paramedics "Throw a bandaid on it, and I'm good."

        1. again, you are munging two concepts

          the issue is not that one must RECEIVE serious bodily injury (or death 🙂 ) to justify deadly force

          it's that the force used agaisnt you is reasonably perceived as LIKELY to result in that level of injury (or death) IF you don't stop it.

          obviously, if zimmerman had suffered serious bodily injury (which he apparently did not ) (i realize fla doesn't use the term serious, but it's the same general standard as WA and other states. iow, more than a bump or bruise . it doesn't have to be life threatening, but it has to be "serious". look up the definition in the model penal code or the RCW)... that would make his case EASIER to justify, but it's not dispositive.

          we had an officer shoot somebody who was swinging a bat at him. he suffered SOME injuries (glancing blow) but he certainly didn't have to wait until he got a broken arm, etc.

          1. we had another who got overpowered by a shoplifter, and the shoplifter was kicking him etc. and apparently even aiming for his head (as witnesses also confirmed). the cop shot that fucker

            he did not suffer serious bodily injury, but it was justified because he was barely still able to defend himself after the long fight but more importantly if the suspect continued, he was LIKELY to suffer serious bodily injury. you don't have to wait for it to happen

          2. again, you are munging two concepts

            I don't think I am, dunphy. What I am doing is pointing out inconsistencies in the stories that are being told (mostly by people who have no idea what they're talking about, but also by Zimmerman.)

            I understand you don't have to recieve serious injuries to use self-defense, but the stories being told are stories about skulls being bashed against concrete, scalps split open, noses broken, people being knocked flat with one punch, etc.

            With that kind of set-up, its a little surprising that the medical care apparently consisted of a couple of bandaids, no trip to the hospital, and so forth.

            1. because much like in cop cases, people are using imprecise language histrionics, etc.

              the release i saw said zimmerman had head injuries

              people here, some of whom could be characterized as zimmerman supporters are adding things like "bashing head against ground" etc. that suggest a bit more

              like in the case of the cop who was found not guilty who was described as 'stomping' the suspect's head. the suspect suffered no injuries. the officer definitely placed his foot against the head but he clearly didn't "stomp it" like edward norton in american history x.

              or like when words in cop analysis here reference somebody getting 'beaten' when their resultant injuries are exceptionally minor

              1. rodney king got bEATEN.

                i recall a recent discussion i had with an anti-cop bigot here who said the cop (iirc this was his words or something close) 'beat the shit' out of somebody when there was no evidence that person suffered any injuries beyond VERY minor ones

                that kind of rhetorical crap.

                about the only thing that is clear is that there are allegations and arguably from decent sources that zimmerman suffered injuries to his head consistent with his being on his back and his head impacting the ground

                anything beyond that, is just histrionic 'filling in the blanks' with words designed to make one's side look better

                like the cop cases. nice to see it isn't reserved solely for cop UOF cases.

                1. at sOME point, we may get a more detailed explanation of what injuries zimmerman suffered or maybe even pictures. considering HPPA and the fact that he may not get charged, etc. we may never see them or at least not until and unless there is an actual civil trial.

                  i am just differentiation between sUFFERING serious bodily injuries (which i am not aware zimmerman is claiming nor the cops in regard to him) and being in a situation where a reasonable and prudent person based on the facts known to him at the time reasonably perceives an imminent risk of serious bodily injury (or death) which is what would justify self defense

                  i apologize if i read too much into what you were saying.

                2. Because if someone doesn't actually shit themselves and you say they got the shit beat out of them, you're obviously an anti-cop bigot.

              2. the officer definitely placed his foot against the head

                Yeah, you're being totally objective with "placed his foot".

                The video in question:


                "Placed his foot"? "the suspect suffered no injuries."

                You fucking moron. There were definitely injuries. I wasn't aware that if you didn't go to the hospital you didn't have injuries. But you must be right. After all, you're a cop, there's no way you'd color a story to minimize improper actions. I mean, what motive could you possibly have?

                1. Different case.

                  In that case the DA said the officer was "sweeping" his hand away. He got suspended for saying he was gonna beat the "Mexican piss out of" him, either. And the female officer was off the hook entirely.

                  He did get a new Latino partner to learn about diversity, though.

                  Oh, and shortly after he was under investigation for choking someone to unconsciousness. IIRC the dash cam "malfunctioned," so nothing happened there.

                  Justice has been served.

                  1. Whadda ya mean? That's the one he disputes was a head stomp.

                    1. I mean this one.

                      Seattle police have multiple head-stompings, ya know? There was the bar brawl and then the random Hispanic guy cops detained incorrectly and stomped on his head after saying they'd beat the Mexican piss out of him. I think dunphy's talking about the former, and you're talking about the latter. The latter never made it to trial.

                      I could be wrong, of course.

                    2. And the reason I'm pretty sure is that dunphy's officer, Garth Haynes, was acquitted just over a week ago. The officer you're talking about, Shandy Cobane, had everything dismissed a year or two ago.

          3. dunphy, did the officer who shot the person with a bat carry a taser or did he just already use up all his cartridges on old ladies and children?

        2. If someone is beating your head against the sidewalk, it may just give you a cut and it may end your life. The first few could just cut/bruise you and the next one is harder and does you in.

          If his injuries are consistent with his story, then that's likely what was happening. Doesn't mean he didn't start the fight, but odds are a mouthy 17 year old started it over an older 25 year old who knew the cops were on their way.

          1. But the odds are 100% that Zimmerman could've and should've avoided the situation, and that a guy got killed because he didn't.

            That's what pisses me off. But worse things do happen in the world, and this story is getting fucking old.

            1. which is wonderful but even if true says exactly zero about the justification of the shooting.

              lots of arrests i make of good felony suspects come from people who 'could have avoided' following a guy and calling 911. as long as zimmerman didn't attack martin, but merely "observed and reported' i would support that

              *if* martin got pissed off because this guy was following him, yelling out to him that he was calling police or whatever, that's understandable.

              and he would be right to call police himself but unless zimmerman was assaulting him, or placing him in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, etc. he would not be justified in striking zimmerman.

              whether he did or not is of course in question

      2. for the record (actual facts here), *if* paramedics (and this assumes paramedics even responded. in most cases, with relatively minor/non life threatening injuries in MANY jurisdictions, you get EMT's not EMT-P's (the latter being paramedics)

        zimmerman was placed into handcuffs. he was in custody.

        when an in custody refuses medical treatment, it's different from when another person refuses.

        even if he refuses you STILL take him to the hospital IF and it's a big IF his injuries warrant it.

        he was not in a neck brace when he got to booking and he did not go to the hospital.

        that's strongly suggestive he may have had ouchies, but he certainly didn't have the type of injuries that would suggest concussion, cracked skull, etc.

  28. A lesson in this for everyone: if you are involved in a physical event involving the possibility of a trial or a lawsuit, then take pictures of any wounds you have suffered.

    1. anytime i arrest somebody (and any good police agency does this) where it's any sort of assault related crime, WHETHER THEY ARE THE ALLEGED VICTIM or SUSPECT, they get pictures of their injuries.


      that's investigative practice 101

      even when interviewing a "victim", i also look for signs they were the agressor and/or struck the "suspect" like bruised knuckles, etc.

      you look for skin under fingernails with both parties, etc. etc.

      again, our job is not to take sides or to only collect evidence that helps one side or the other

      the job of police is to gather evidence, first and foremost. because evidence degrades and/or can be tampered with, or even fabricated

      1. i arrested a guy the other day for one of the most serious domestic assaults i have ever dealt with . we tracked the guy down and he was totally surprised we caught him. he had no injuries, but you always ask (i asked him on a taped interrogation) and you ALWAYS photograph them or you are #$(# up bigtime

        there is even value in photographing the absence of injuries.suspect says victim kicked him in the shin.take photographs of the shin WHETHER visible injuries are there or not

        it's doing your job
        my partner forwarded the digital photos to the prosecutor for the first appearance (where guy appears before judge after spending night in jail).

        apparently, they were so compelling (in addition to the wonderful report etc. we wrote) that the judge set bail at 250k which is pretty amazing for a DV assault (granted, a felony one) and a guy who is not bill gates wealthy

      2. There might be pictures.

        Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

        1. absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence! 🙂

          yes. this is a great example of why i usually choose agnosticism and why most of the argument in these cases assumes wAY too much. people here are tools of the media and if the grand almighty media machine doesn't provide x, and x would be hurtful to their POV, then x clearly doesn't exist


          and shit

  29. I thought Mother Jones reported Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him at close range to the chest- if he died instantly, (most gunshots are not immediately fatal) meaning he got shot in a major artery or in the heart. Gravity pulls things down, so why no blood anywhere on zimmerman's shirt if he was being straddled, his head being pounded into the pavement when he shot?

    1. Is it possible the police took his clothes as evidence at the scene? It would seem to be the logical thing to do, not saying the police seem to have been logical here.

      1. i would bet they took his clothes as evidence. if they didn't, i'd outright say this is not a real police dept in sanford.

        if martin was on top of him when zimmerman shot him, it's LIKELY but not certain there would be at least visible blood close up if you looked martin. again, close up.

        i have seen gunshot wounds that happened right in front of me where there is NO bleeding from the entrance wound. usually much more spewage from the exit wound, assuming there was an exit wound

        gravity would suggest the blood would drip on to zimmerman, but again - not a 100% certainty. it just ... depends

      2. Martin could have been on top of him, but Zimmerman pushed him off enough to the side (with arms or legs) that he was able to grab his gun and shoot.

        1. yea, that too!

          as somebody who has seen entrance wounds happen right in front of me, in addition to numerous classes, there is USUALlY a spray outwards from an entrance would when a bullet enters. but that's uSUALLy. and it would most of the time leave SOME traces, but whether those traces would be visible on some video or something is another thing entirely.

  30. Behindertsein ist sch?n

  31. The arguments by Zimmerman's supporters increasingly remind me of arguments by creationists against evolution -- they don't actually have any logically coherent alternative theory of what happened, but they are definitely sure what didn't happen.

    1. As opposed to "Prove he's not racist! Prove he's not racist! You can't prove he's racist so this was cold blooded murder! Prove it's not! Prove he's not racist!"


      1. I think I was one "not" short in there. But you get the point.

      2. No, prove he needed to shoot an unarmed teenager, moron.

        1. Who was beating him and supposedly threatening to kill him? We can prove that only slightly more than anyone else can prove that Z hunted him down "like a dog", called Martin a slur to his face, struck him first and killed him in cold blood. And frankly, none of the evidence presented so far substantiates the latter claim whatsoever - despite the claims of the lynch mob calling for Zimmerman's head.

          But yeah, calling people morons for not automatically buying your equally unsubstantial interpretation is real productive...

          1. Bet your a global warming denier also!

        2. can we eliminate irrelevancies? the fact that martin was 17 is largely irrelevant. is a 17 yr old going to be unable to beat the shit out of zimmerman vs. say a 21 yr old?


          it's nifty to note he is 17 but it's largely a plea to emotion to keep bringing it up ... "he's only a kid" type bullshit

          we have kids at our gym from 9 yrs old and 17 yr olds are certainly (generally) physically capable and on average are going to be plenty strong enough and likely little to no difference strength wise between a 17 yr old and the average 18 yr old certainly, or even 21 yr old

      3. Whether Zimmerman is a racist is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified. My point is that his supporters raise irrelevant facts ("Martin had a gold tooth!") and come up with hypotheticals that contradict his own statement to the police. ("Martin must have tried to grab the gun!")

        They do this because Zimmerman's statement -- that Martin spontaneously attacked him -- is implausible based on the undisputed facts: (1) Martin said he was going out to buy snacks during halftime of the NBA All-Star game, (2) Martin bought snacks, (3) Martin was roughly a block away from his final destination when the confrontation happened, (4) Martin was unarmed, and (5) Martin was sober. Zimmerman's own account thus requires a sober, unarmed man, running an errand and planning to watch live sports to spontaneously attack a stranger on a public street.

        1. (5) is an erroneous conclusion.

    2. also, one is not a zimmerman supporter just because one brings up facts relevant to zimmerman's defense, etc.

      fwiw, i am not a zimmerman supporter.


      i point out facts whether they are beneficial to zimmerman OR detrimental to him and there are both in this case thus far.

      it's called discussing an issue

      imo, anybody who has taken a "side" here is jumping the gun, so to speak.

      now imo, there certainly are a lot of factors that support zimmerman and i've outlined some.

      there are also some serious questions

      lets remember we only know what we get fed by the media, and to a lesser extent the little that has been released by the PD

      people here who trust the media. well. ???

      do the math

      1. well said.

    3. Did you watch the video of Zimmerman's father?

      That's Z's story right there. Makes total sense and sounds quite plausible from the evidence we've seen.

      1. like i said, i find Z's statement to the cops as 'passing the smell test'

        that doesn't mean it's true. it means it doesn't strike me as false from the get go

        contrast with the story of the duke accuser that just struck me as possibly bullshit from the beginning

        having investigated scores of physical confrontations, etc. zimmerman's account is at least consistent with logic, with itself, and with some witness and physical evidence

        also, and this can't be emphasized enough, the fact that he did not lawyer up, but provided a statement immediately upon arrest is HUGELY in his favor in my mind (and something i have brought up long before this case)

        ime, it's very rare for a guilty person (like in this case, a person who shot martin without at least something close to self defense justification if not outright justification) to do that.

        1. it is HIGHly suggestive of behavior we see from innocents

          it doesn't follow that IF one lawyers up, one iS guilty

          but it does follow that if one does not and offers the kind of statement zimmerman did (vs. other sorts of statements we see from the guilty), that this is strongly in their favor

          and imo a prosecutor recognized that, and a grand jury would as well.

          1. Add to that the fact that as the child of a judge he most certainly knows "never talk to cops without a laywer". The pieces that pass the smell test continue to pile up for me on the side of "Zimmerman as recipient of one-sided media screwjob".

            1. good point./

              fwiw, ironically, in a few cases i have had ATTORNEYS give me complete statements after arrest. both were self defense cases, both resulted in me NOT BOOKING THEM just like in zimmerman's case, and both were not charged .

              iow, contra the don't talk to police meme, even attorneys (one was a defense attorney!) know its horseshit when you are innocent and you can make that case to the cop and avoid booking, etc.

              neither was a homicide, but one case did involve a defensive use of a gun

              1. An advanced theory of mind task.
                If I act innocent, the cops will treat me like I am innocent, so I should do things that cops think innocent people do.

                I am an attorney (or my dad is a judge), so I am familiar with the fact that cops will view my statement as in my favor and I MIGHT AVOID GETTING BOOKED. I will keep it short and logic and consistent with the facts that they can easily verify

                1. IOW - play to the human tendency towards confirmation bias.

                  1. IOW, the fact that Z gave a statement doesn't play in to the truth determination.

                    it is HIGHly suggestive of behavior we see from innocents

                    Also doesn't play into the truth determination. Indeed, given the fact that this behavior may lead cops NOT TO BOOK, it is absolutely true that you have no idea how many guilty people behave this way.

                    The accuracy of the system in determining guilt is far from well established. If you define innocent as "were not convicted" your statement may conform to reality. But most people think of "guilty" and "convicted" as different concepts. Same with "not convicted" and "innocent."

                    1. i am talking about what later case facts develop

                      if, as in the duke case, you VOLUNTEER your dna without a warrant and your defense attorney makes predictions about how it won't be found in her vagina, etc. that's something an innocent person does because it has positive EV FOR AN innocent to do, but NOT FOR A GUILTY PERSON

                      by doing so, giving statements, etc. you lessen your chance of getting awway from being charged, and you decrease your variety of different defenses your attorney can try etc.

                      very very rarely, it may benefit a guilty person to do so, but it almost always benefits an innocent to do so

                  2. except you miss the critical factor. if you are guilty, and act innocent by providing the post arrest statment, you almost certainly fuck yourself over.

                    because that statemetn can be used to IMPEACH YoU.

                    do you get it?

                    in terms of game theory, it's negative EV (USUALLY) TO do the things that innocent people do

                    for example, guilty people often flee the scene. that offers them the opportunity to dispose of damning evidence.

                    otoh, if you are innocent, you WANT the cops to collect evidence on your person because it HELPS YOU

                    if you offer a statement of self defense and the cops can disprove elements of your statement, you are in a much worse situation than if you never talked to police

                    so, your conclusion is incorrect, generally speaking

                    1. in brief, neu mejican, i suggest a course on game theory

                    2. Again, you are assuming that the process is one that leads to the truth.

                      IF I act innocent and get away with it, it was the right gamble. IF I act innocent and avoid getting booked at all, it was the right gamble. If I act innocent and do it smartly (e.g., provide a statement that is simple, logical, and consistent with the facts that I know will be found), it may be worth the gamble.

                      so, your conclusion is incorrect, generally speaking

                      I am ABSOLUTELY correct in my conclusion that you have NO IDEA how many people guilty people behave this way. You also have no idea how many people who were innocent act in this way. Because you ABSOLUTELY do not know how accurate the system is at determining guilt and innocence.

                    3. FWIW,

                      I have taught courses on game theory.

                    4. the reality is this. innocent people TEND to do certain shit and guilty people TEND TO DO CERTAIN SHIT. there are of course exceptions.

                      just like people arrested for DUI who didn't drink any alcohol will TEND TO want to take a breathalyzer to prove their innocence

                      what zimmerman did is much more consistent with what innocents (or people who think they are innocents) tend to do. we are talking human behavior, not an exact science.

                      interrogations of people who were guilty as fuck and later admitted it after conviction for example helps to confirm many of these general principles.

                      people who do bad shit and have evidence on them TeND to try to flee to dispose of damning evidence.

                    5. people who innocent are less likely to do so.

                      people who are innocent TEND TO protect their innocence and are more likely to give detailed statements as to why they are

                      again, there is TONS of variance, but we are talking general principles

                      zimmerman's behavior is more consistent with, and thus suggestive of the innocent vs. the guilty

                      it's not conclusory . it's predictive.

                      that's all i'm saying.

                      and again, if you are guilty as fuck, it is generally negative EV to give a statement like zimmerman gave because it will fuck you over. you can't then go and testify to something different in trial or you get impeached as a liar. it limits the ability of your defense attorney to use various defenses. and it gives a fact pattern that cops who are gathering evidence can test against to see if you are full of shit

                    6. i stand by what i said, although i admit that if you have taught courses on game theory, i sound like a pompous horse's ass for making my statement about game theory 🙂

                      just like the duke case, there were lots of cues thAT SUGGESTED they were innocent and she was full of shit

                      ime, the smell test of this shit is a reasonable indicator but hardly a 100% certainty.

                      that's all i am saying.

                      zimmerman is not acting like a guilty person, and when you take that into account as well as the corroboration of his UNREHEARSED statements to cops by witness(es) and physical evidence, those look good for him

                      he very well MAY BE guilty as fuck, but these factors mentioned suggest against that

                2. Someone ~that~ skilled at the Jedi Mind Trick should be free to go.

  32. Wow, Jacob. You sound like a lawyer yourself. A defense lawyer for Mr. Zimmerman.

    1. fwiw, any time i do an investigation or i arrest somebody i try to think like a defense attorney.

      that's good police work

      1) it helps me look for stuff i might miss. iow, "what would the defense point out is a hole in the investigation, the cops missed, or that is exculpatory for the arrestee." if the guy gives an alibi and i can confirm it (and thus unarrest him) , i do. even when i have determined there is PC to arrest and i also do make an arrest, doesn't mean i don't accept that the suspect may be innocent as fuck, and it's MY JOB to think like both (or neither) a defense attorney or prosecutor. because my job is to look for evidence and gather facts, etc. not to only do so if it supports the most probable cause theory.

      1. 2) it also helps take some future defenses out of possibility, IF they are in fact bogus. like in any assault, an obvious defense is self-defense. i ask the suspect if they felt afraid, if they felt they were being attacked, etc. etc. obviously, if they say NO, the possibility of self defense is eliminated largely. because SD defense is partly a matter of perception. if they don't perceive themselves in danger when they use force, whether or not they WERE in danger is largely irrelevant.

        see: process analysis

  33. Regardless of what the video shows, how come none of the time stamps ever change, no matter how long the video runs?

  34. So, did the para medics clean his grass stained jacket up as well?

    1. More important: is Chicago deep dish really better than New York thin crust?

      1. Yes.

        Now DOP certified Neopolatean OTOH....

  35. Are any of you paying royalties on the name "Trayvon Martin?"? The name is trademarked and y'all b owen his mother some monies. JUSTICE!

  36. Sullum's bias in this case has been apparent from the start and is disappointing. His distortions of the facts are awful. While a bloody nose could be cleaned up, the question is how did he have bloody nose with out getting any on his shirt or jacket.

    I get a blood nose, in prime conditions and do my best to avoid bleeding on my shirt, and find that most the time I don't succeed. I still get some drops there and blood gets very dark on clothes as it dries. It becomes very apparent. Why is there no sign of blood on the clothes in the video?

    They may have wiped his face when he was arrested but they didn't let him do laundry.

    1. Well, maybe they collected the jacket as evidence? You know to try and figure out what happened.

      1. i am pretty sure that gillespie is penning a brilliant essay right now on the perils of allowing the state to collect THE JACKET as evidence.

    2. I've seen it reported for days that it was a broken nose. That does not necessarily mean much blood.

      1. exactly... yet again people inserting stuff that makes their side look better

        media or cops say broken nose

        person with bias (often without noticing it) changes that in their mind to "bloody nose" and then presents stuff that makes the latter at least suspect but has no relevance ot the former.

        again, i find these discussions more instructive on cognitive dissonance , reading comprehension and how bias affects interpretation than instructive on the underlying issue itself

        but again, that's because i have seen it on UOF cases here eNDLESSLY before, it's just those UOF's are usually cop related

        also, remember unless i read it in a source document, the fact that a media person etc. says "broken nose" may in fact be a distortion of what the source document said. iow, source document says something like 'injury to nose' and dumbass reporter says "broken nose'

        1. kind of like the other day how steigerwald (who couldn't hold balko's jockey shorts) changes a story about a POLICE UNION providing money to cops involved in shootings to a POLICE DEPT. doing so.

          one can rarely go broke overestimating the incompetence of journalists

          1. Hey, you leave Lucy alone! You'll have a riot on your hands for sure.

        2. I read the actual police officer's report. It is available online but I don't have a link.

          The officer stated that Zimmer was bleeding from the back of his head and nose (I think it said his nose was bleeding, but I won't swear to it). It did not say that Zimmer's nose was broken, I am certain of that; of course I would not expect a police officer to diagnose a broken nose even if it was broken. The officer's report also stated that Zimmer's shirt was wet and had grass on the back.

          1. thx. and yes, we are discourged from offering diagnoses, but just to report observations.

            such as "nose is swollen, red and distorted in appearance such that appears consistent with a broken nose in my experience' or something. as a former medic, i can get a bit more "conclusory' than the average ofc. but still hedge it.

            and even if a nose looks bent and broken, ofc may not know what its PRIOR appearance was, so should not draw conclusion merely because its bent that it was broken TODAY

            THX FOR THE INFO

          2. Didn't realize that was online. Found a link:

            Something else new:
            [While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman I over heard him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me."]

            1. source documents!!!! nice

        3. I watched Ben Rothlisberger get a very broken nose playing Baltimore last season. Hardly any blood on his jersey at all, and he was back in the game on the next play.

          1. yea. but he's a RAPIST so he knows how to conceal body fluid evidence

            i mean... duh

  37. "sarcasmic:As I see it Zimmer put himself in a situation where he provoked an angry youth who into starting a fight, and being outmatched and i a panic he shot the guy.

    Could the situation have been avoided? HELL YES
    Was the kid justified in picking a fight?NO
    Was it self defense?very weak yes"

    speaking of double standards

    if zimmerman was a cop,there is exactly zero chance sarcasmis (or coeus or ...) would be coming to this conclusion.

    note he offered a very weak yes. iow,a conclusion.

    the cop would be a racist,a thug, and murderer

    here were cases with way more established evidence in favor of the cops and the cop was a murderer

    deacon turner was armed (with a bag with some beer cans/bottles), he was also a former elite athlete (not a 17 yr old) football player iow strong as fuck, the cop was taken TO THE HOSPITAL FOR HIS INJURIES and the bigorati here called him a murderer.

    1. Dude, whether or not it was self defense, he still killed somebody. In modern parlance people are going to call you a murderer if you kill someone. Justified or not.

      1. IN MODERN PARLANCE, HERE when they are calling the cop a murderer, when i am explaining it MAY BE JUSTIFIED and the responses are 'no he murdered that guy. he should be in prison' and shit like that, it is pretty clear what was mean

        feel free to google "deacon turner" for the posts at this blog regarding that incident and you will see what i mean

        i was the only one who considered it might be justified. the others were almost universally saying he was a murderer, it was cold blooded murder, not self defense and shit like that

        read it if you don't believe me

        1. I am pretty sure that I concluded that was a justified shooting as well, so you were not alone. Posted under a different name then, my own, which I have since decided is not wise.

        2. Disingenuous asshole. Again with this shit. Zimmerman confronting the kid is different from him attacking him with a a baton. At least to sane people. And would you fucking drop that "bottle" shit already? They were cans. You know they were cans. We know they were cans. And you bitch about people using misleading colloquialisms? When you straight up lie about facts?

      2. Then those people are completely ignorant.

        'Murder' is killing that is illegal.

        There is a reason they are different words.

        There are lots of ignorant people out there...just because they are legion does not make them correct.

        1. i know. my point is they wouldn't even consider the cop might be justified, let alone coming to a conclusion he was, as sarcasmic did here

          again, i suggest you read the thread because it is instructive how differently the bigorati approach a situation where it's a cop who committed homicide and not a nonleo as in this case

          it's quite instructive.

          many people here at least try to look at it from zimmerman's pov, try to consider mutliple possibilities etc.

          that is not done here when a cop shoots

          there are a myriad of examples. deacon turner is but one

          1. I don't think I've looked at that one much.

            There is a difference for police though: they should be held to a higher standard. They have training, equipment (BP vests, batons, handcuffs, tasers), and back-up. That and they take a check from the state.

            A recent case illustrated how that's not the case though. Cop shoots 2 bystanders while chasing after armed perp (who was not pointing gun or shooting back). Of course he doesn't actually hit the perp.

            If I was being mugged and shot 2 bystanders, I would go to jail for a long time. I don't even think this cop got a suspension. That's ludicrous.

            1. again, you would not go to jail or get charged if you had a legitimate shoot and you acted reasonably.

              people love to play this "if it wasn't a cop " bullshit, but its rarely true. i see case after case that shows its not, but those are ignored

              regardless, in many situations, the backup etc. is not the point

              in the turner case, turner hit the guy in the head with the bag containing the bottles or cans and had it held over his head again and was coming down in tomahawk style chop when he was shot (allegedly)

              1. cops still have a right to self defense, we are not supermen, we are not firearms experts who can shoot the guns out of people's hands

                the fact that i take a check from the govt doesn't vitiate my absolute right to self defense.

                in some respects, cops DO have stricter standards for use of force. that's already the case. but when it comes to deadly force, a cop deserves the same rights AND the same benefit of the doubt that many here offer zimmerman but do not offer cops. over and over and over again HERE

                1. in general, i think the public is very supportive of cops, treat us very fairly, etc. i get paid well, get great respect from most members of the public, etc.

                  my critique is of the reason anti-cop bigots

                  society at large, i think is very fair and evenhanded in their approach towards cop uof's

                  also note that cops are very very very restrained in use of force. when you look at the %age incidents that cops use ANY hpysical force, and especially the exceptionally rare percentage we use deadly force, it's abundantly clear we hold ourselves to a very high standard and are very restrained vis a vis force.

                  1. the issue is selection bias. we can NOT SHOOT 15 people who have knives in their hands and are being assaultive towards us and chances are none of those events will make the paper ... i've been involved in more than 1 such incident and no mentuion in the press

                    it's only when we DO SHOOT that we get press, thus skewing people's perceptions

                    many anticop bigots here have
                    admitted they have no idea about the frequency of cop uof's or deadly uof's or if the trends are going up, down etc. but they have no problems drawing conclusions from a position of ignorance

                    before i became a cop i was similarly ignorant. what impressed me once i saw reality and started studying the actual statistics was how restrained cops are and how well they defuse violent suituations often with very little or no force

                  2. also note that cops are very very very restrained in use of force. when you look at the %age incidents that cops use ANY hpysical force, and especially the exceptionally rare percentage we use deadly force, it's abundantly clear we hold ourselves to a very high standard and are very restrained vis a vis force.

                    Seeing as how you've lied repeatedly on this thread, I'm gonna have to ask you for a cite. Your credibility is shot.

          2. FWIW, I think the LEO should be held to a higher standard in terms of self-defense claims. Because the job comes along with greater latitude in terms of what UOF are legal, there should be a higher burden on proving that the UOF was justified.

            There should be a double standard.
            The situation is different if there is an on-duty LEO involved. The societal decision to give a monopoly on certain kinds of force demands that there be a double standard.

            1. in many respects, the 'job' places much higher burdens already on us vis a vis force. i have already given such examples. GENERALLY SPEAKING, A NONCOP IN AN ARREST SITUATIONS FOR INSTANCE, has greater latitude in regards to force than we do

              about the only kinds of force we have a monopoly on are the right to use force to comply a person submit to a stop based on reasonable suspicion.

              other use of force situations, we have roughyl the same rules, and often more strict rules in regards to what force we can use.

              for example, as a cop i have stricter rules about using force on a fleeing felon than a noncop does

              see the kelso case i mentioned for example

              regardless, rule of law matters. i hold cops accountable for force, in regards to what the law is.

              not the law that the anticop bigots wish was the law

            2. Neu, I think something else you should have to consider is training. It's part of a cop's job to try to resolve situations without chalklines and they have training in that regard. So employing deadly force should mean exhausting other techniques a "civilian arrestor" is unaware of or trained in or physically capable of.

              I suppose it's similar to how I have a fiduciary duty to clients. I know more about finance and professionally should be held to a higher standard.

      3. "In modern parlance"

        Do you mean coitus?

    2. if zimmerman was a cop,there is exactly zero chance sarcasmis (or coeus or ...) would be coming to this conclusion.

      If Zimmer was a cop I would hope that he had training sufficient enough to not allow himself to be put in a situation where a punk ass kid is has him on his back while he's grabbing for his weapon.

      Mr Wannabe Cop put himself in a situation where a trained individual could have resolved it differently, but because he was there without training and with a gun, someone died.

      That's quite a bit different from some punk ass cop shooting some grandfather in the face for the crime of brandishing his grandson.

      1. And for the record dunphy, I'm starting to believe that you are one of then 1% who gets a bad rap because the other 99% are all pieces of shit.

        1. Probably he is, but he's not helping his case by constantly lying in almost every thread about cops.

    3. he cop was taken TO THE HOSPITAL FOR HIS INJURIES

      Cite that shit you lying ass. He may have gone to the hospital, but it could just as easily been to cover his ass. I never saw any injury report, did you?

  38. I know that the standards are higher for cops. I am saying that is the correct situation. And it is one that needs to be diligently enforced.

  39. dunphy, in case you are reading this and care to respond to my repeated question of yore:

  40. Sorry, Sullum, but your revisionist history ain't gonna cut it with anyone having an i.q. over libertarian.

    Daddy Z is peddling the beat-down bullshit as hard as the police. Here's the fantasy from daddy:

    "It's my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him ... at that point, he (Martin) was punching him in the nose, his nose was broken and he was knocked to the concrete."

    Unless you believe that the father got that version of events from police instead of his own son, daddy has just fucked George seven ways to Sunday. The video doesn't show a broken nose, so the prosecution can introduce George's lies to his father as proof of a guilty mind.

    When your hero goes to the slammer, he's going to pray his cellmate is a TSA agent, and not a horny black supremicist with a taste for fat Latins. George's is gonna wish his new hole was as small as Trayvon's.

    1. ...compassionate.

    2. You can always trust people who delight in prison rape.

    3. "the video"

      lol. You don't think the father knows if his son's nose was broke or not?

      Are you insane?

      You are so special that you can tell if someone's nose is broke by some grainy video on the internet? Are you on crack?

    4. The video may not show a broken nose, but the medical report does:

      Please explain again how Zimmerman's claim that his nose was broken is proof of a guilty mind.

  41. Well, someone was definitely calling for help as verified by multiple 911 callers. That's a vital part of the case.

    911 calls and police reports here along with other info:

  42. 3 teenagers were killed in philadelphia yesterday. does anyone care? the killer was a black man. It is truly sad this story is so big because people care about the race of the shooter and not really the dead kid.

  43. In the Sanford, Florida, police video where George Zimmerman is handcuffed and being led into the police station, you can see an injury on Zimmerman's head during the two-and-a-half seconds that Zimmerman is standing with his back toward the camera, immediately before Zimmerman is led through a door on the far side of the room.

    The injury is a gash that runs from near the top of the back of Zimmerman's head, where his hair is thinnest, downward and slightly to the right. That gash is what the police officer was examining about 20 seconds earlier in the video, just after he had finished searching Zimmerman's clothes.

    The graininess of the video makes the gash hard to see because the contrast is low. But, nonetheless, the injury to Zimmerman's head is visible for about two seconds, if you look closely or pause the video at the right moment.

  44. The hasty and negligent reporting of the media regarding a lack of injuries on Zimmerman's head was false, and the error has served to prejudice potential jurors in any trial that might occur. A simple plausibility check would have told a prudent person that it wasn't at all likely that the police, the paramedics, and the district attorney would all be telling the same lies about Zimmerman having injuries that he didn't have.

    I don't think that this error was an honest mistake. I think that the national mainstream media have deliberately spread false news in order to further a political agenda, which is partly aimed at the repeal of the "Stand Your Ground" laws that exist in many states.

  45. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??? This is clearly a hate crime by a 'crime watch' asshole. This HATE has to stop now. All of the white people who claim that George is innocent need to see me personally. SO I CAN PUNCH THEM IN THE F'N FACE FOR THE IGNORANCE THEY HOLD. THIS CRAP STARTED ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT!!! YOU F'N RACIST PIGS. WE NEED TO TALK!!!. I GOT SOMETHING FOR ALL OF YOUR PREJUDICED BASTARDS!!!

    1. This HATE has to stop now. All of the white people ... need to see me personally. SO I CAN PUNCH THEM IN THE F'N FACE.


  46. It truly amazes me that so many defenders of Zimmerman don't even realire that WHEN this happens to YOUR CHILD(REN) IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD...


    I'm actually on my way to Florida in the morning to HANDLE SOME SHIT!!!!

    1. If so, please wear a hoodie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.