A new photograph obtained exclusively by ABC News showing the bloodied back of George Zimmerman's head, which was taken three minutes after he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, gives possible credence to his claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as he fought for his life.
The exclusive image shows blood trickling down the back of George Zimmerman's head from two small cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head. The original police report that night notes that the back of Zimmerman's head was wet, and that he was bleeding from the nose and head.
Probably money.Yeah, just how does this evidence continue to 'leak'? If it was available today, after the charges were filed, how was it not two weeks ago? I read somewhere that the Sanford Mayor instructed some 'leakage' to deflate the tension some time back...is this still going on? Why?
Warning Graphic Photo: Possible New Evidence Shows George Zimmerman's Bloodied Head - Yahoo!
Imo, looks like Zimmerman may have told the truth about the back of his head being slammed on the pavement by Trayvon Martin.
Your thoughts?
Did those cuts need stitches?
So, when is "deadly force" authorized?
Look at the pic above
Legal justification or personal justification?I would imagine if Zimmerman was getting his head repeatedly slammed on the pavement that he would have the justification to shoot the punk off of him, imho.
I am so sure, sweet faced, innocent, skittle eating, iced tea drinking, Trayvon Martin had absolutely nothing to do with those gashes on head head that magically aren't there when he walks into the police station for booking.
I would imagine if Zimmerman was getting his head repeatedly slammed on the pavement that he would have the justification to shoot the punk off of him, imho.
Legal justification or personal justification?
If you're arguing personal justification, I agree. If you're arguing legal justification, I don't agree that getting your head slammed on the pavement ALONE is legally justified. If it were, then anyone could start a fight, lose and then shoot the person they're losing to without consequence.
The one does not necessarily follow the other. Someone whooping your ass in fight may or may not be justification for shooting them in the chest with a 9mm.
If you have a legal right to shoot someone who is slamming your head on the pavement alone, then anyone can start a fight , lose and kill the person they're losing too. Would you like that?Hn. I don't know.
From a limited perspective on the laws, I think you have the legal right to shoot someone who is slamming your head repeatedly on the hard pavement. Zimmerman had no way of knowing when Martin would end the attack, and he could have suffered even worse injuries, or death. I would rather take my gun and shoot him off, rather than wait and discern if Martin wants to leave me severely injured, in a coma, or dead.
If you have a legal right to shoot someone who is slamming your head on the pavement alone, then anyone can start a fight , lose and kill the person they're losing too. Would you like that?
If you have a legal right to shoot someone who is slamming your head on the pavement alone, then anyone can start a fight , lose and kill the person they're losing too. Would you like that?
Warning Graphic Photo: Possible New Evidence Shows George Zimmerman's Bloodied Head - Yahoo!
Imo, looks like Zimmerman may have told the truth about the back of his head being slammed on the pavement by Trayvon Martin.
Your thoughts?
Wasn't it an ABC "exlusive" video which didn't show any evidence of cuts to Zimmerman's head in the first place? Jeez. These people sure seem to be back-tracking. :lol:
The situation you just said "you have no problem with" would lead to three things:I have no problem with that. I see shooting a person that has enough control over another person's body to slam their head into the pavement completely justified. I sure it wasn't Trayvon that slammed his head into the pavement. Zimmerman weighed 100 lbs more than Martin.
Less "backtracking" and more "new evidence". You don't willfully pursue and show new evidence if you're backtracking.Wasn't it an ABC "exlusive" video which didn't show any evidence of cuts to Zimmerman's head in the first place? Jeez. These people sure seem to be back-tracking. :lol:
Even if it is found that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, according to the law, Z can still claim self defense under the FL law. At the point he felt great bodily harm or death was imminent .That's a good point.
The problem is discerning exactly who initiated the fight. It could have been Zimmerman for stopping Martin, or it could have been Martin for initiating the violence. We just don't know for certain yet; we do know that new evidence on Z's injuries surfaced today.
We are not a court. They aren't withholding anything. Notice these things we know are being "leaked"It makes me wonder why the photos weren't released when they were taken at the night of the incident. Why withold evidence?
Less "backtracking" and more "new evidence". You don't willfully pursue and show new evidence if you're backtracking.
(1) Even if it is found that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, according to the law, Z can still claim self defense under the FL law. At the point he felt great bodily harm or death was imminent .
(2) We are not a court. They aren't withholding anything. Notice these things we know are being "leaked"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?