ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Tra

[Jiro]

No, this is a new news report.

I think the real problem for you is that it contradicts your prejudged opinions. Trayvon had bruised knuckles. You said he didn't have any marks.

no I did not say that. The funeral director did.

And there are very different opinions about who could not discuss this in a civilized, intellectual manner. Furthermore, I distinctly recall that you created more than one thread on this topic.

where? I only created one. Every single time you've accused me of something that I've never did and I replied back asking you for a proof, you've never replied back. You seem to be in business of spreading false rumors about me.

for demonstrating my point about people being unable to discuss this in a civilized, intellectual manner.

What this news story does is confirm the risks of trusting the earliest news stories- the first stories out are always about being first with the most titillating details, not about accuracy.

like I said... if I recalled correctly, it's against AD rules to create another thread of same topic that has been locked a few times.

 

[Foxrac]

I have no idea what you just said. It's poorly written.

Of course, his post is too confused.

 

[Jiro]

It's not about you. It's about the evidence. This is new documentation of a point that was under dispute.

Why not go to a doctor with who you are familiar, already has your history, takes your insurance, costs a lot less, and doesn't make you wait with other emergency cases? Besides, many people, myself included, only go to ER's when there's no other option available.

Because.... Zimmerman said he got his head repeatedly bashed against concrete. That sounds pretty serious. And the city pays for medical expense, not him. and going to family doctor instead of E.R. raises a suspicion and casts a reasonable doubt on Zimmerman.

It's possible that family doctor may "concoct" a medical report in a way that would favor Zimmerman. Either way - this so-called new evidence proves nothing. It only shows that physical altercation had occurred but it is not enough to justify Zimmerman's Stand-Your-Ground defense.

You can choose to ignore it.

Ignore what?

That doesn't mean others might not be interested in keeping up to date with the case.

I am very interested in this case but it's unfortunate that this could not be discussed in a coherent manner.

 

[Foxrac]

Any thread has the potential to become locked. It's up to the participant posters to use restraint in their posts.

My concern about this thread has turned into George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin battles.

You and some other members are very upset when I decided to support the justice for Trayvon Martin so you made me to abandon those. There are people in protest who saying support justice for Trayvon Martin and when I said like that so you told me that I will not serve as jury. I'm not appointed to be jury for George Zimmerman, even not resident in state of Florida so it doesn't matters to me. I just want you and other members to not curse at me and label as unable to serve as jury. Make opinion statement on case as normal person is different from jurist - both are totally different career.

CrazyPaul has asked some hypocrite questions against Trayvon Martin so I see him/her as pro-Zimmerman so you don't go after him, except for Kokonut to made clear up. :roll:

 

[Foxrac]

Because.... Zimmerman said he got his head repeatedly bashed against concrete. That sounds pretty serious. And the city pays for medical expense, not him. and going to family doctor instead of E.R. raises a suspicion and casts a reasonable doubt on Zimmerman.

It's possible that family doctor may "concoct" a medical report in a way that would favor Zimmerman. Either way - this so-called new evidence proves nothing. It only shows that physical altercation had occurred but it is not enough to justify Zimmerman's Stand-Your-Ground defense.


Ignore what?


I am very interested in this case but it's unfortunate that this could not be discussed in a coherent manner.

In bold, same here.

 

[VacationGuy234]

My concern about this thread has turned into George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin battles.

You and some other members are very upset when I decided to support the justice for Trayvon Martin so you made me to abandon those. There are people in protest who saying support justice for Trayvon Martin and when I said like that so you told me that I will not serve as jury. I'm not appointed to be jury for George Zimmerman, even not resident in state of Florida so it doesn't matters to me. I just want you and other members to not curse at me and label as unable to serve as jury. Make opinion statement on case as normal person is different from jurist - both are totally different career.

CrazyPaul has asked some hypocrite questions against Trayvon Martin so I see him/her as pro-Zimmerman so you don't go after him, except for Kokonut to made clear up. :roll:

I'd have to look at all the threads, but I doubt they were locked because of member views. I'm guessing it had more to do with obstructive debate.

 

[Reba]

as I said.... if I recalled correctly, it's against AD rules to create another thread of same topic that has been locked a few times.

In that case, I'd let the mods worry about it. I'm not a Mod, and I don't play Mod.

 

[Reba]

You should know that usually in a case with slam-dunk, solid evidence that would clearly convict a person, then it wouldn't go to trial.

Say, what?

Nothing is "slam-dunk" in the world of evidence and trials. No matter how "slam dunk" the evidence seems, only a jury or judge can convict, and that requires a trial. (If a person confesses and pleads guilty, that's another matter but it still requires going before the judge.)

btw - just a courtesy request. would it be possible if you tone down your cussing?

 

[Reba]

Because.... Zimmerman said he got his head repeatedly bashed against concrete. That sounds pretty serious. And the city pays for medical expense, not him.

Since when?

and going to family doctor instead of E.R. raises a suspicion and casts a reasonable doubt on Zimmerman.

Reasonable doubt is a legal term used in court. It has nothing to do with choice of medical care.

It's possible that family doctor may "concoct" a medical report in a way that would favor Zimmerman. Either way - this so-called new evidence proves nothing. It only shows that physical altercation had occurred but it is not enough to justify Zimmerman's Stand-Your-Ground defense.

You posted that a prosecuting attorney wouldn't risk a lawsuit or loss of job by falsely charging Zimmerman. The same argument could be made for his doctor. The doctor wouldn't risk legal repercussions or loss of job in order to falsify his medical records.

Ignore what?

Threads that don't meet your standards of interest.

 

[Jiro]

Since when?

Has it always been that way? Each state has a "Victim Compensation Fund".

Reasonable doubt is a legal term used in court. It has nothing to do with choice of medical care.

right. His choice of medical care has raised a reasonable doubt.

You posted that a prosecuting attorney wouldn't risk a lawsuit or loss of job by falsely charging Zimmerman. The same argument could be made for his doctor. The doctor wouldn't risk legal repercussions or loss of job in order to falsify his medical records.

I didn't say doctor falsified the report. I said it is possible that his doctor construed a report that would favor Zimmerman.

Threads that don't meet your standards of interest.

I don't follow What standards of interest?

 

[Reba]

My concern about this thread has turned into George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin battles.

You and some other members are very upset when I decided to support the justice for Trayvon Martin so you made me to abandon those.

I have to disagree. I was never "very upset" about anything in previous Zimmerman/Martin threads. I'm sorry if that was your impression but it's not true. I'm not upset about people supporting either or no side, as long as none of the facts are misrepresented. Personally, I don't see how either side can be supported until all the facts are presented.

Secondly, no one, except the mods or Alex, can prevent you from posting whatever you want. If you decide to quit posting about a topic, that's totally up to you.

There are people in protest who saying support justice for Trayvon Martin and when I said like that so you told me that I will not serve as jury.

That's true for any court case. If a prospective juror says they support one side or the other, then that person is not qualified to be on the jury. Jurors must be totally neutral.

I'm not appointed to be jury for George Zimmerman, even not resident in state of Florida so it doesn't matters to me. I just want you and other members to not curse at me and label as unable to serve as jury. Make opinion statement on case as normal person is different from jurist - both are totally different career.

You know that I have never cursed at you or anyone.

I did not label you. If you can be impartial and not take sides, then you can serve on a jury. If you state that you support one side and not the other, you can't be on the jury. Those are the rules. That's not labeling.

CrazyPaul has asked some hypocrite questions against Trayvon Martin so I see him/her as pro-Zimmerman so you don't go after him, except for Kokonut to made clear up. :roll:

Did CrazyPaul say he would serve on a jury with that viewpoint? I must have missed that post.

Honestly, I can't keep up with every single post. I do have a life. In fact, I really shouldn't even be posting here today. I need to get back to my programming test. My break's over.

 

[rolling7]

I have no idea what you just said. It's poorly written.

Out of all the members here only you two, yourself and Foxrac, have a problem. So this is for the two of you

CNN is not the court and can not present any evidence of anything at all.
EMS does not equal ER, two different specialist.
ER does equal hospital, so there is not need to send anyone in the ER to the hospital...they are already there.

Get it now? Everyone else does.

 

[Jiro]

Out of all the members here only you two, yourself and Foxrac, have a problem. So this is for the two of you

CNN is not the court and can not present any evidence of anything at all.
EMS does not equal ER, two different specialist.
ER does equal hospital, so there is not need to send anyone in the ER to the hospital...they are already there.

Get it now? Everyone else does.

nope I don't get it at all..... it's even worse than previous post. in fact, it's completely incoherent.

 

[rolling7]

nope I don't get it at all..... it's even worse than previous post. in fact, it's completely incoherent.

Like I said, you are the only member having a problem.

 

[Babyblue]

Quick questions. Do any of you guys think Zimmerman was in the right to get out of the car and confront Travon himself?? Even after 911 told him not to follow him??

 

[Foxrac]

I have to disagree. I was never "very upset" about anything in previous Zimmerman/Martin threads. I'm sorry if that was your impression but it's not true. I'm not upset about people supporting either or no side, as long as none of the facts are misrepresented. Personally, I don't see how either side can be supported until all the facts are presented.

Secondly, no one, except the mods or Alex, can prevent you from posting whatever you want. If you decide to quit posting about a topic, that's totally up to you.

That's true for any court case. If a prospective juror says they support one side or the other, then that person is not qualified to be on the jury. Jurors must be totally neutral.

You know that I have never cursed at you or anyone.

I did not label you. If you can be impartial and not take sides, then you can serve on a jury. If you state that you support one side and not the other, you can't be on the jury. Those are the rules. That's not labeling.

Did CrazyPaul say he would serve on a jury with that viewpoint? I must have missed that post.

Honestly, I can't keep up with every single post. I do have a life. In fact, I really shouldn't even be posting here today. I need to get back to my programming test. My break's over.

Ok, I thought that you seems to be upset - just my assume.

It doesn't saying about prevent from posting, however I had to abandoned my opinion about pro-Martin Trayvon after I got backfire from other members.

I'm perfectly understand about concept of jury and If I have to serve as jury so I will have to be neutral and more ethic, that's very different from regular people who don't serve as jury. You told me that I don't serve as jury because of my opinion on George Zimmerman - just act like regular person, not jurist. Your comment had made me to talk back at you as well.

I don't say about CrazyPaul will serve as jury in George Zimmerman's case and I don't know where he/she lives in, however his/her questions are hypocrite against on Trayvon Martin.

 

[Foxrac]

Out of all the members here only you two, yourself and Foxrac, have a problem. So this is for the two of you

CNN is not the court and can not present any evidence of anything at all.
EMS does not equal ER, two different specialist.
ER does equal hospital, so there is not need to send anyone in the ER to the hospital...they are already there.

Get it now? Everyone else does.

CNN is just report only, not court so I have no idea about what are you talking.

 

[Foxrac]

nope I don't get it at all..... it's even worse than previous post. in fact, it's completely incoherent.

Yup, it is complete garbage.

 

[rolling7]

CNN is just report only, not court so I have no idea about what are you talking.

The quote fro CNN is "E.R. personnel", which is totally false. GZ was seen by the EMS service. If you don't know the difference, let me know and I will explain.

Also, when you or I or anyone else goes to the E.R., you are already in the hospital. So the E.R. never sent someone "to the hospital", the person is already there.

 

[Jiro]

Like I said, you are the only member having a problem.

because they are more polite and nicer than I am.