Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

Since jack was too lazy to click on the link and read the article here it is. The good parts that jack might be interested in are in red:

Quote :

In a week of leaked high school disciplinary records, police reports and police station surveillance video in the war over public perception of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, more details have emerged about Zimmerman’s history of violence.
Zimmerman, the 28-year-old Sanford, Fla., neighborhood watch volunteer who shot the unarmed 17-year-old Martin to death last month, was fired from a job securing illegal house parties for “being too aggressive,” according to the New York Daily News, which quoted a former colleague of Zimmerman’s. According to the co-worker, Zimmerman worked for two agencies that provided security for house parties from 2001 to 2005.

“Usually he was just a cool guy,” said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped.” The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.

“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”

The new portrayal of Zimmerman comes as distinctly different images of both Martin and Zimmerman are being floated by people on both sides of the Martin killing. Zimmerman told police he shot Martin Feb. 26 in self defense after being jumped from behind. He has not been charged.

Photos of a fresh-faced, smiling Martin in a Hollister T-shirt helped attract sympathy to his parents' call for justice, as did a 2005 police mug shot of a scowling, overweight Zimmerman photographed after being charged with assaulting a police officer.

This week, stories challenging both portraits emerged. Photos of Martin with removable gold tooth caps and revelations that he was suspended from his Miami high school three times, including once for possessing an empty baggy that school officials said contained marijuana residue, became ammunition for conservative websites and and people sympathetic to Zimmerman.

Law enforcement in Sanford also leaked a police report to the Orlando Sentinel, offering details of Zimmerman's account of the killing for the first time.

The report said Zimmerman told police that Martin attacked him from behind, punched him in the nose, wrestled him to the ground and violently bashed his head on a sidewalk. It was then, Zimmerman told the police, that he pulled out his 9mm handgun and shot Martin in the chest.

Surveillance video from the Sanford police station recorded the night of the shooting, first broadcast by ABC News on Wednesday, showed a clean-shaven and fit-looking Zimmerman being ushered in to the station without visible abrasions, bruises or bloodstains on his clothes, all of which may fail to support his account of a violent death struggle. In addition, the funeral director who handled Martin’s body reported there were no cuts or other marks on the teen's hands that would suggest violent fisticuffs.

In the days after the shooting, Martin’s family said police officers told them Zimmerman had a clean record. But a cursory search of county records showed a 2005 arrest on charges of resisting arrest and assaulting a law enforcement officer. The charges were later dropped.

Also in 2005, Zimmerman was involved in a bitter domestic violence incident with his ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo. In that case, Zuazo filed for a restraining order against Zimmerman, who she said snatched her cell phone from her hand and pushed her during an argument. The next day, both filed court petitions accusing the other of violence.

According to the Miami Herald, Zuazo said that three years earlier, Zimmerman attacked her while the two were driving to a counseling session. Zuazo said she popped her gum in his face and he repeatedly smacked her in the face. In January 2002, she added, Zimmerman became enraged that she had come home late. They wrestled and he threw her on the bed, smacking her, according to the newspaper.

In September 2003, Zimmerman called police and reported that another motorist spat on him, according to reports, Zimmerman followed the man in his car until the police arrived. Daniel Osmun, the other driver, told police that Zimmerman was tailgating and that he spit his gum out the window "out of frustration."

Osum said that Zimmerman then pulled alongside of him, and the two argued. In a police report of the incident, Osum said “at one point, he thought Mr. Zimmerman was going to attack him." No charges were filed against either man.

Zimmerman was the self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community where Martin was visiting his father and his father’s girlfriend when he was killed. Zimmerman noticed Martin, who was walking home from a store, and called 911 to report the youth as "suspicious." (Zimmerman had called 911 46 times in recent years.) According to 911 recordings the night of the killing, Zimmerman followed Martin against a dispatcher’s recommendation. The police initially said that at one point Martin noticed he was being followed, turned to ask what Zimmerman wanted, and a physical altercation ensued.

Zimmerman was questioned and released by police, who said they lacked evidence to contradict his self-defense claim. The State Attorney’s Office is considering whether to file charges. A grand jury is scheduled to be called on April 10.

Some of Zimmerman’s neighbors said he had a history of being overly aggressive and followed people whom he thought appeared suspicious back to their homes.

At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, days after the killing, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” a resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity told HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch role.

The former co-worker quoted by the Daily News said he had not recently been in touch with Zimmerman, but his latest troubles came as a shock nonetheless.

“He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power,” he said. “Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never.”

Like I said, Zimmerman HAS a history of violence Martin does not.
That's a fact.
Does anybody see a pattern here?

Quote :

Nice source, edge

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223

Better?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

At least I have the guts to present an argument with facts that are in evidence.....
1)Zimmerman was pursuing Martin despite being told not to by police.
2)Zimmerman has a documented history of violence
2)Martin had none

Yes, you have presented an argument based upon the facts in evidence (although why you believe that takes “guts” is beyond me).

Just basing that on your history of rarely presenting a counter argument based on facts and instead replying with sarcastic comments that do nothing to advance the discussion.. A perfect example is you summarily dismissing Edge's article from the Huff Post,despite the fact that the article was loaded with links to other reputable sources.
 

happy jack wrote:

And by presenting those facts, you have proven that:

1)Zimmerman was pursuing Martin despite being told not to by police.
2)Zimmerman has a documented history of violence
2)Martin had none

However, what you have clearly not proven is that Zimmerman initiated an attack on Martin.

I never said it proof positive. All I said is that based on those facts I believe that it is more likely that Zimmerman attacked Martin then vice-versa.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

My, my –that makes you as talented as the doctor you cited earlier –you know, the one who can diagnose a broken nose by watching a grainy video.

President of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians who stated that with a broken nose you would see some swelling. See any? I didn't.

happy jack wrote:

As the doctor examines the back of Zimmerman’s head on the video at 1:10 – 1:15, he states:
“If he had a significant abrasion, I think we’d see that on this film. I don’t see anything, though.”
So, if this ‘expert’ somehow managed to miss this ….

…. then it is quite conceivable that he could have missed indications of a broken nose.

The problem with that argument is that those pictures were most likely taken earlier
before he was cleaned up or treated.

Artie60438 wrote:

If you now admit that you "have no idea what happened that night" then how can you possibly be sure my scenario is wrong?

happy jack wrote:

[b]I do not just “now” admit that I have no idea what happened that night – I have always maintained that I had no idea what happened that night. You, on the other hand, have been forced to create fictional scenarios in order to make the ‘facts’ of the case fit what you so desperately want to believe.

You always seem to take the easy way out. You dismiss my theories out of hand yet never present one of your own.
My scenarios are based on the facts. Are you familiar with the term "circumstantial evidence"?
1)Zimmerman was pursuing Martin despite being told not to by police.
2)Zimmerman has a documented history of violence
2)Martin had none

Court file in Trayvon Martin case unsealed

Quote :

SANFORD, Fla., April 24 (UPI) -- The Florida court file in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was unsealed after the confessed shooter was released on bail, officials said.

The judge made the file public Monday after George Zimmerman, who pleaded not guilty to a second-degree murder charge, was released from jail, the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel reported.

The court file revealed that Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, demanded all the evidence the state has gathered against his client. The file also indicated a hearing date was scheduled to keep at least some of the evidence out of the public arena, the Sentinel said.

The delivery of the prosecution's evidence to the defense on Friday means the evidence would be available to the public. However, O'Mara and Special Prosecutor Angela Corey indicated they wanted to keep at least some, possibly all, of the information secret.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday on a motion by media attorneys on making public the evidence, which includes crime scene photos, phone records and the autopsy report, the Sentinel said.

happy jack wrote:

So, if this ‘expert’ somehow managed to miss this ….

Except the doctor was not basing his opinion on "this."
He based his opinion on the video which hardly shows anything, not the photo. The 'expert' didn't miss anything.

Quote :

…. then it is quite conceivable that he could have missed indications of a broken nose.

It's also quite conceivable that Zimmerman never had a broken nose. The only people so far that I know of who have made that claim are George Zimmerman, his father and his brother. Given the fact that none of those people are trained in medicine, any reasonable person would find them hardly credible at diagnosing a "broken nose."

Yes?

Artie60438 wrote:

Just basing that on your history of rarely presenting a counter argument based on facts and instead replying with sarcastic comments that do nothing to advance the discussion.. A perfect example is you summarily dismissing Edge's article from the Huff Post,despite the fact that the article was loaded with links to other reputable sources.

I didn’t dismiss edge’s article. I just pointed out that edge was using a source which …. well, let’s hear what edge has to say about it in his own words, shall we?

edge540 wrote:

…. The notion that the Huffington Post is a major media outlet is absurd.
It's nothing more than a left leaning news/commentary/blog outlet ….
Is the Huffington Post biased? Yeah, so what? ….

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

My, my –that makes you as talented as the doctor you cited earlier –you know, the one who can diagnose a broken nose by watching a grainy video.

President of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians who stated that with a broken nose you would see some swelling. See any? I didn't.

happy jack wrote:

As the doctor examines the back of Zimmerman’s head on the video at 1:10 – 1:15, he states:
“If he had a significant abrasion, I think we’d see that on this film. I don’t see anything, though.”
So, if this ‘expert’ somehow managed to miss this ….

…. then it is quite conceivable that he could have missed indications of a broken nose.

The problem with that argument is that those pictures were most likely taken earlier
before he was cleaned up or treated. [/quote]




If your ‘expert’ is able to ascertain a lack of swelling from a crappy video, then I see no reason why he shouldn’t be able to see the residual effects of the head wounds, even after Zimmerman was cleaned up and treated. The wounds were certainly more than scratches or an “abrasion”, as your ‘expert’ put it. But your ‘expert’ clearly missed seeing those, didn’t he?

Artie60438 wrote:

If you now admit that you "have no idea what happened that night" then how can you possibly be sure my scenario is wrong?

happy jack wrote:

[b]I do not just “now” admit that I have no idea what happened that night – I have always maintained that I had no idea what happened that night. You, on the other hand, have been forced to create fictional scenarios in order to make the ‘facts’ of the case fit what you so desperately want to believe.

You always seem to take the easy way out. You dismiss my theories out of hand yet never present one of your own.
My scenarios are based on the facts. Are you familiar with the term "circumstantial evidence"?
1)Zimmerman was pursuing Martin despite being told not to by police.
2)Zimmerman has a documented history of violence
2)Martin had none[/quote]




Seeking the truth is your idea of taking “the easy way out”?
Wow. That certainly explains a lot.
You can spout all the theories you want. When you start spouting some verifiable truth, then maybe you will be taken seriously.

happy jack wrote:

The wounds were certainly more than scratches or an “abrasion”, as your ‘expert’ put it.

Huh? WTF are you talking about?
"wounds"...? what "wounds"?
Wow, give me a fricken' break.
What, now YOU'RE doctor and qualified to make that diagnoses? LOL. If those "wounds" were "certainly more than scratches or an “abrasion" as you put it, they would have taken him to the ER or at least put on a Sponge Bob Band-Aid on those "wounds." They didn't put shit on those "wounds" now did they?

Quote :

But your ‘expert’ clearly missed seeing those, didn't he?

No, he did not miss anything because clearly there was nothing to see in the video.

happy jack wrote:

Seeking the truth is your idea of taking “the easy way out”?

Save us the pious attitude When all you do is dismiss others theories or opinions that are based on facts and circumstantial evidence without offering any of your own I'd say that fits the definition.

Quote :

You can spout all the theories you want. When you start spouting some verifiable truth, then maybe you will be taken seriously.

So says the man who is incapable of offering any form of a logical rebuttal.

happy jack wrote:

[b]There is no way to offer a “logical rebuttal” to a scenario that you are making up as you go along.

Same response I would get from a dining room table. Typical.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]There is no way to offer a “logical rebuttal” to a scenario that you are making up as you go along.

Same response I would get from a dining room table. Typical.

Here are the simple facts of the situation:

I do not know what happened that night.
You do not know what happened that night.
I admit that I do not know what happened that night.
You make things up.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The wounds were certainly more than scratches or an “abrasion”, as your ‘expert’ put it.

"wounds"...? what "wounds"?

These wounds. Which ones did you think I was talking about?

Seriously?
These are the "wounds" that are more than scratches or an “abrasion”? What would make you say something so ridiculous? Are you a doctor? How do you know for a fact that they are " more than scratches or an “abrasion"? You see some deep gash that nobody else does?
The only thing I see is some blood that could come from minor cuts or scratches, the kind that I've seen at a playground. I sure as hell do not see "more than scratches or an “abrasion." Don't see it in the video, don't see in the photo.
If these "wounds" were so serious why didn't they require more attention in the ER? Why no stitches? Not even a ice bag on the big boo-boo.

The picture shows more blood (from two sources?) than a playground scratch.

KarenT wrote:

The picture shows more blood (from two sources?) than a playground scratch.

Bullshit.
I've seen much worse cuts on playgrounds, ball fields and basketball courts that keep on bleeding. Notice that the blood on his noggin trickles down a few few inches and then stops all by itself. If it was a serious cut it would keep on bleeding and the blood would have gone beyond down into his shirt. Serious cuts also require pressure and or stitches for them to stop bleeding. In this case it's obvious there was no pressure that was applied to the boo-boo and the bleeding stopped all by itself without any pressure being applied.
It's also obvious there is no deep open wound that requires stitches.

BTW, yes I've had certified first aid training.

happy jack wrote:

I asked you this once before, but I got no answer: Do you feel that it would have been wise for Zimmerman to wait until the injuries were much more serious before defending himself?[b]

I think it would have been wise for Paul Kersey wannabe to stay in his SUV.

Quote :

In your certified first aid training courses, were you taught that the most reliable way to accurately diagnose injuries is to look at pictures and videos, then make a wild guess?

Well, well, well look who's talking.
That's rich coming from you who said:

Quote :

"The wounds were certainly more than scratches or an “abrasion”

Jack, I'm not the one who making a wild guess, YOU ARE.
You don't like my opinion, go ahead take it apart, make my day. Tell us in your expert opinion what exactly you disagree with...and watch that rake.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]I asked you this once before, but I got no answer: Do you feel that it would have been wise for Zimmerman to wait until the injuries were much more serious before defending himself?[b]

I think it would have been wise for Paul Kersey wannabe to stay in his SUV.

Not an answer.
Try again.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]I asked you this once before, but I got no answer: Do you feel that it would have been wise for Zimmerman to wait until the injuries were much more serious before defending himself?[b]

I think it would have been wise for Paul Kersey wannabe to stay in his SUV.

Not an answer.
Try again.

I don't have enough info to give you an answer. It's up to the jury to decide if it would have been wise for Zimmerman to wait until the injuries were much more serious.
You want to take a crack at my "wild guess"?
Please tell us in your expert opinion what exactly you disagree with...and watch that rake.

happy jack wrote:

I asked you this once before, but I got no answer: Do you feel that it would have been wise for Zimmerman to wait until the injuries were much more serious before defending himself?

I let this go the first time, but since you've now repeated the question, I'd like to point out that by asking this question, it certainly appears that you have taken a position on exactly what happened. It's a bit disingenuous to berate others for theorizing about the incident while engaging in the same behavior yourself, don't you think?

Interesting insight.

Looks like George who is 28 years old, has a problem telling the truth.
He said this in court:
“I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."

Oh really?

The 911 transcript of February 26th:
911 dispatcher: "How old would you say he is?"

Zimmerman: "He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."
911 dispatcher: "Late teens?"

Zimmerman: "Uh, huh."

And now we have this:
Martin attorney: Zimmerman misled court about money
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/index.html