PDA

View Full Version : 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #17



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

imamaze
04-04-2012, 07:41 PM
Please continue here.
Remember the rules: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159
Remember the "ignore" feature on your profile page.
Please stick with the facts as reported by LE or MSM, and link them. Link them often if necessary.
Please clearly state when it is your opinion. If you are making an inference please clearly outline and link the facts and evidence that have led you to form that inference. Wild speculation about any case player has no place here.
Please PM a mod with any questions or concerns and alert any TOS violations or offensive posts.
And finally, PLEASE address one another respectfully. Last reminder.

We will no longer allow discussion of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the Black Panther protest(s). There are way too many <modsnips> and timeouts to continue this discussion. We will allow MSM links to such protests, but no discussion.
We need to stick to the facts of this case and that's our discussion here. Please, we ask that you do what you do best - SLEUTH THE CASE.
Blogs and Twitter links and discussion of them are allowed only if it's an approved WS link or a link from main stream media (MSM).


Thread #1 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165269&highlight=Trayvon)
Thread #2 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166351&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #3 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166513&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #4 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166660&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #5
Thread #6 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166872&highlight=Trayvon+Martin)
Thread #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167001&highlight=Trayvon+Martin)
Thread #8 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167151&highlight=y%2Fo+teen)
Thread #9
Thread #10
Thread #11
Thread #12
Thread #13
Thread #14
Thread #15
Thread #16

Clairfication on WS stance regarding the "victim friendly" issue.
I had a discussion with the owners about how we were to deal with this. This is what I was advised:
At this point in the investigation we don't KNOW exactly who ALL the victims are now. We KNOW that Trayvon is a victim, because he is dead. However, news breaks and new leaks come forth everyday and it is still unclear whether Zimmerman was a victim of any violence. Until more verifiable FACTS are available, WS has chosen to err on the side of treating both the confirmed (Trayvon) AND potential (Zimmerman) victim, both as victims.
Like I said, that may change after we have more verifiable information
Hope that helps clear this up.
Please bump as needed.

Just a reminder:
WS does not permit links that request or suggest sending donations without the clear permission of the owners . This is to protect our members and for no other reason.
__________________

katydid23
04-04-2012, 07:55 PM
Did they thank you for spraying the kids?
Just asking because I'm really curious? lol
__________________

They thanked us for calling them because they were pretty sure it was these kids that were hassling the elderly couple. But their parents always said ' Oh No, they were home all night inside with us.'

So spraying them was PERFECT because the parents said 'NO, they were home doing their homework.' But the cops found their bikes outside with wet sweatshirts on the ground next to them. LOL So it proved it was them after all.

This elderly couple has been hassled by these brats for months now. The woman has cancer and needs rest. So they complained that the boys play basketball out in the street lat at night, against the HOA rules. And they sneak into the pool which is right below our houses. And they keep her awake.

So I feel no remorse about my DH spraying them with water when he saw them sneaking up to the house with rotten eggs. And I will GLADLY spray them again if I see them doing it anymore. They are mean bullies and their parents are clueless enablers.

I HOPE it hurt their feelings when they got sprayed but I doubt it.

LinasK
04-04-2012, 07:58 PM
Did they thank you for spraying the kids?
Just asking because I'm really curious? lol
__________________

They thanked us for calling them because they were pretty sure it was these kids that were hassling the elderly couple. But their parents always said ' Oh No, they were home all night inside with us.'

So spraying them was PERFECT because the parents said 'NO, they were home doing their homework.' But the cops found their bikes outside with wet sweatshirts on the ground next to them. LOL So it proved it was them after all.

This elderly couple has been hassled by these brats for months now. The woman has cancer and needs rest. So they complained that the boys play basketball out in the street lat at night, against the HOA rules. And they sneak into the pool which is right below our houses. And they keep her awake.

So I feel no remorse about my DH spraying them with water when he saw them sneaking up to the house with rotten eggs. And I will GLADLY spray them again if I see them doing it anymore. They are mean bullies and their parents are clueless enablers.

I HOPE it hurt their feelings when they got sprayed but I doubt it.
LE thanked you for calling them, but not for spraying the kids. Did they know that you had sprayed them??? I don't think LE would be condoning that.

highflyer
04-04-2012, 07:59 PM
Did they thank you for spraying the kids?
Just asking because I'm really curious? lol
__________________

They thanked us for calling them because they were pretty sure it was these kids that were hassling the elderly couple. But their parents always said ' Oh No, they were home all night inside with us.'

So spraying them was PERFECT because the parents said 'NO, they were home doing their homework.' But the cops found their bikes outside with wet sweatshirts on the ground next to them. LOL So it proved it was them after all.

This elderly couple has been hassled by these brats for months now. The woman has cancer and needs rest. So they complained that the boys play basketball out in the street lat at night, against the HOA rules. And they sneak into the pool which is right below our houses. And they keep her awake.

So I feel no remorse about my DH spraying them with water when he saw them sneaking up to the house with rotten eggs. And I will GLADLY spray them again if I see them doing it anymore. They are mean bullies and their parents are clueless enablers.

I HOPE it hurt their feelings when they got sprayed but I doubt it.

You didn't answer the question. Understand that you believe bullying should be met with bullying but the question was asked.....

Did they thank you for spraying the kids?
Just asking because I'm really curious? lol

claudicici
04-04-2012, 08:00 PM
Joe Oliver steps down as GZ's Press Secretary

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/tray...ia-advisor.php


Bringing this over fro the last thread......priceless.
Lawrence O'Donnell is incredible IMO,watch Joe squirm....I lol'd many times..."we were all drunk at family gatherings,I don't know him well,I'm just the only one standing up for him,I'm his uncle,co-worker,I don't know what my role is etc lol

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:02 PM
LE thanked you for calling them, but not for spraying the kids. Did they know that you had sprayed them??? I don't think LE would be condoning that.

YES. They did know we sprayed them. That is how they were caught, because the wet sweatshirts showed their parents were LYING. So LE had no problem with my DH spraying them at the time.

They were sneaking up in the dark with rotten eggs to throw at the house of an 80 yr old couple, one of whom has cancer. Do you think the cops were worried that they were sprayed with water?

i.b.nora
04-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Tony Gatto posted the link to this article on the last page of the last thread.

I am reposting because I find this guy kind of fascinating.

Joe Oliver, George Zimmerman's 'friend', no longer his media advisor (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/joe-oliver-george-zimmermans-friend-no-longer-his-media-advisor.php)

By Joy-Ann Reid
The Grio
12:39 PM on 04/04/2012

"Joe Oliver, who made a media splash as the friend who stepped forward to support George Zimmerman, has stepped down as Zimmerman's media adviser.

Oliver, 53, first told theGrio he reached out to Zimmerman's attorney, Craig Sonner, after he was unable to reach George, with whom Oliver works at a Florida mortgage security firm."

and

""My whole intention from the beginning was to help George with the media," Oliver told theGrio, claiming his many television appearances began with a mere coincidence.

"It just so happened that when I finally got in touch with Craig" to offer his services, on the day of their initial meeting just over a week ago, "ABC News was already there to interview Craig."

Oliver said he stepped forward to join the team because in his words, Sonner was inexperienced in dealing with the media, and Oliver, a former news anchor with NBC affiliate WESH in Orlando, who also worked for CNN, "was aware of what the media storm that was brewing was going to be like, having had 20 plus years experience both local and network. As a friend, acquaintance -- however you or anybody else wants to define it -- it was my obligation to offer my expertise to his counsel in dealing with the media.""

Much more and a video...

<Mod Snip>

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:04 PM
My face hurts so much from smiling! I pray that when my new nephew/niece is born, and he/she grows up, things like this won't be an issue? I already have two nieces growing up in this world today... I try and teach them each and every day... something new. Something that will shape their minds and their hearts... to make them better people... to allow them to see the world with real meaning... and I'm so proud of them for who they have become already. Now I have a new little one on the way (BEAMING!!) and I can only hope that they are able to grow up the same way? My sister's children have been 10 years, and now 7 years apart... I just hope the newest member of my family is as blessed as much as my nieces?

I hate to be so sentimental... but when you know a new life is forming... it makes you think about the future?

LinasK
04-04-2012, 08:05 PM
YES. They did know we sprayed them. That is how they were caught, because the wet sweatshirts showed their parents were LYING. So LE had no problem with my DH spraying them at the time.

They were sneaking up in the dark with rotten eggs to throw at the house of an 80 yr old couple, one of whom has cancer. Do you think the cops were worried that they were sprayed with water?
But...wet sweatshirts does NOT mean LE knows how they got wet- that your husband sprayed them. I stand by my point, no matter how rotten they were.

SuziQ
04-04-2012, 08:06 PM
OT Breaking News

Steven Powell called in sick the day after Susan Disappeared
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163753&page=10

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:07 PM
You didn't answer the question. Understand that you believe bullying should be met with bullying but the question was asked.....

Did they thank you for spraying the kids?
Just asking because I'm really curious? lol

I did not say that 'bullying should be met with bullying.' Do not put words in my mouth.

I did say that SOMETIMES they need to be shown how it feels to have their own feelings hurt. And I do believe that. That is not bullying, imo.

And yes, they were glad that my DH sprayed the bullies with water because that is the ONLY reason they were caught. Their parents were proven to be lying for them because of the wet clothing.

The cops came and thanked us for ' getting involved.' I don't think they ever said for spraying them, but for getting actively involved and helping the neighbors. They knew my DH sprayed them though, and they never said it was wrong given the circumstances.

i.b.nora
04-04-2012, 08:08 PM
Maybe the 'bully' stuff should go to the 'bully' forum? Just an idea.

LinasK
04-04-2012, 08:09 PM
I did not say that 'bullying should be met with bullying.' Do not put words in my mouth.

I did say that SOMETIMES they need to be shown how it feels to have their own feelings hurt. And I do believe that. That is not bullying, imo.

And yes, they were glad that my DH sprayed the bullies with water because that is the ONLY reason they were caught. Their parents were proven to be lying for them because of the wet clothing.

The cops came and thanked us for ' getting involved.' I don't think they ever said for spraying them, but for getting actively involved and helping the neighbors. They knew my DH sprayed them though, and they never said it was wrong given the circumstances.That is my point- they wouldn't thank you for spraying the kids, because it is legally assault!

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:09 PM
But...wet sweatshirts does NOT mean LE knows how they got wet- that your husband sprayed them. I stand by my point, no matter how rotten they were.

YES, We told them before they even went to the boys house that they were sprayed in the act of throwing the eggs. They did not say anything about that at all.

LinasK
04-04-2012, 08:10 PM
YES, We told them before they even went to the boys house that they were sprayed in the act of throwing the eggs. They did not say anything about that at all.
And did you clarify that it was your husband who did the spraying?

highflyer
04-04-2012, 08:11 PM
I did not say that 'bullying should be met with bullying.' Do not put words in my mouth.

I did say that SOMETIMES they need to be shown how it feels to have their own feelings hurt. And I do believe that. That is not bullying, imo.

And yes, they were glad that my DH sprayed the bullies with water because that is the ONLY reason they were caught. Their parents were proven to be lying for them because of the wet clothing.

The cops came and thanked us for ' getting involved.' I don't think they ever said for spraying them, but for getting actively involved and helping the neighbors. They knew my DH sprayed them though, and they never said it was wrong given the circumstances.

It is bullying whether you can recognize it in yourself or not.

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:11 PM
That is my point- they wouldn't thank you for spraying the kids, because it is legally assault!

If it was a legal assault we would have been arrested, right?

They thanked us for 'getting involved.' Since the only thing we did was spray them , watch them run home and then call LE, then I guess they are thanking us for spraying them.

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:12 PM
It is bullying whether you can recognize it in yourself or not.

Okay, Fine. I bullied 2 13 yr olds who were throwing rotten eggs at my 80 yr old neighbors house. I am a BULLY. Fine with me.

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:14 PM
And did you clarify that it was your husband who did the spraying?

YEP. And believe it or not, they were a bit more concerned with the 80 yr old cancer victim who was being vandalized and harassed for months. I guess spraying them with a garden hose while they had rotten eggs in their grubby little mitts pales in comparison.

LinasK
04-04-2012, 08:16 PM
If it was a legal assault we would have been arrested, right?

They thanked us for 'getting involved.' Since the only thing we did was spray them , watch them run home and then call LE, then I guess they are thanking us for spraying them.
I'm sorry to seem so nitpicky, but you still have not made it clear to me whether or not LE knew it was your husband who did the spraying. The parents of the kids can press charges against you for assault for spraying them. I would assume, the "getting involved" that LE is thanking you for is for calling them, which is what any Neighborhood Watch person would do. They would not go beyond that.

ynotdivein
04-04-2012, 08:17 PM
*looks around, checks map, looks around again*

We appear to be very far afield. Main road is thataway. Let's all head back there before we run out of supplies.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:17 PM
#17 thread!

17-years here on this Earth! Bless you Trayvon. Bless you! May you be at peace in the arms of our Lord. I pray everyday that you are blinded by what is going on down here on Earth. Be at peace, young Trayvon! Be at Peace!

i.b.nora
04-04-2012, 08:18 PM
"This now allows me to go back to my job, which I was never fired from and never quit." — Joe Oliver

I could have sworn that I heard him tell Lawrence O'Donnell that he had quit his job. Which is why I believed that he is the one that supplied the newer recent photo of George, to the media. And, that maybe if he did that, he might have been fired? I dunno. He is fascinating.

katydid23
04-04-2012, 08:21 PM
I'm sorry to seem so nitpicky, but you still have not made it clear to me whether or not LE knew it was your husband who did the spraying. The parents of the kids can press charges against you for assault for spraying them. I would assume, the "getting involved" that LE is thanking you for is for calling them, which is what any Neighborhood Watch person would do. They would not go beyond that.

YES. THEY KNEW HE SPRAYED THEM WITH THE HOSE. They did not care. They thanked us.

The boys were between our side yard and our neighbors yard. they did not see my husband sitting there at the time. It was dark. He had the water hose in his hand as he was getting ready to wash something out. The boys were creeping up in the shadows with their eggs. So he lifted the hose and sprayed.
I love him for it. If that makes me a bully and a psycho, so be it.

Adrienne37
04-04-2012, 08:24 PM
"This now allows me to go back to my job, which I was never fired from and never quit." — Joe Oliver

I could have sworn that I heard him tell Lawrence O'Donnell that he had quit his job. Which is why I believed that he is the one that supplied the newer recent photo of George, to the media. And, that maybe if he did that, he might have been fired? I dunno. He is fascinating.

He did say he had left his job during the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. I saved the program on my DVR just so I could rewatch it again because man, that was some of the greatest TV ever. Anyway, I'll go back through and see exactly what it was he said.

He is a very unusual person. I'll definitely leave it at that.


~jmo~

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 08:27 PM
Maybe the 'bully' stuff should go to the 'bully' forum? Just an idea.

I agree with you re deciding whether or not "hosing" is bullying--BUT I do believe that the incident itself shows GZ is inclined to act in response to a situation pretty quickly. Again, he could have called the police before anything else. All JMO

Beyond Belief
04-04-2012, 08:28 PM
Reading these threads is giving me all kinds of flashbacks, lol. I can't remember anyone ever calling the police when I was a chld. Well, maybe because our police force was only two guys. One answered the phone and called people up to remind them to get their doggy licenses and the other was the school crossing guard. Times sure were alot more pleasant than things now.

suzihawk
04-04-2012, 08:30 PM
He did say he had left his job during the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. I saved the program on my DVR just so I could rewatch it again because man, that was some of the greatest TV ever. Anyway, I'll go back through and see exactly what it was he said.

He is a very unusual person. I'll definitely leave it at that.


~jmo~

He said he wasn't working 'right now' as he was trying to help Geoge.

It's near the 1:45 mark on the first video at the link.

For those that haven't had the pleasure of watching


ETA: The interview is in two parts so scroll down.

http://newsone.com/nation/afisher/joe-oliver-lawrence-o-donnell-last-call-interview/

TonyGatto
04-04-2012, 08:30 PM
Crump on Piers tonight.

highflyer
04-04-2012, 08:33 PM
Katydid23 feel like I was thisclose to bullying you and I'm sorry.

Adrienne37
04-04-2012, 08:33 PM
He said he wasn't working 'right now' as he was trying to help Geoge.

It's near the 1:45 mark on the first video at the link.

For those that haven't had the pleasure of watching

http://newsone.com/nation/afisher/joe-oliver-lawrence-o-donnell-last-call-interview/

Thanks Suzi! Like I said, best TV I've seen in a long time, highly recommend watching it once, twice, or heck maybe 3 or 4 times.



~jmo~

LambChop
04-04-2012, 08:39 PM
If it was a legal assault we would have been arrested, right?

They thanked us for 'getting involved.' Since the only thing we did was spray them , watch them run home and then call LE, then I guess they are thanking us for spraying them.

I think if the parents filed a complaint they would have been back at your door.

ASSAULT, crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. 6 Rogers Rec: 9. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery. (q.v.)
2. Assaults are either simple or aggravated. 1. A simple assault is one Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment. 2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults. General references, 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep.

The parents could have pressed charges for simple assault. Something to think about the next time you have a hose. Protester's that G. Anthony sprayed tried to have him arrested for turning the hose on them.


I found some other things in there, too, about pointing a gun at someone. jmo

Adrienne37
04-04-2012, 08:40 PM
Last thing I'm going to say about the water hose incident but it's this type of behavior in Zimmerman that really makes me think if it hadn't been Trayvon it would have been some other child. We hear about the time he was employed as a bouncer and picked up a girl and threw her against the wall. We hear about him spraying what he perceives to be "bullies" with water hoses. We hear about his arrest for assaulting a police officer. We hear about the restraining orders that he had issued on him. These are not normal things that someone does. This indicates that this guy has a history of violence, especially considering he picked up a GIRL/WOMAN and threw her. How can we condone that type of behavior? What right does a man ever have to put his hands on a woman in any way, shape, form, or fashion? What right did he have to punish a child that did not belong to him? I just can't understand how there can be any excuse for this type of history. What do you think would happen to Zimmerman if his victim were white? He would already be locked up, no bail until a trial date, and there would be no supporters for him whatsoever.

~jmo~

ynotdivein
04-04-2012, 08:46 PM
Cease. Desist.

We have a thread to discuss bullying here.

We probably have a thread to discuss gardening and garden hoses here.

This thread is about the Trayvon Martin case. Let's get back to sleuthing as best we can the events that occurred on Feb. 26 based on the evidence at hand.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:46 PM
I am so sorry, but what is the "water hose" incident? I've been on cloud nine all day and haven't been here, so could someone please explain it to me? Or link me?

csziggy
04-04-2012, 08:47 PM
My face hurts so much from smiling! I pray that when my new nephew/niece is born, and he/she grows up, things like this won't be an issue? I already have two nieces growing up in this world today... I try and teach them each and every day... something new. Something that will shape their minds and their hearts... to make them better people... to allow them to see the world with real meaning... and I'm so proud of them for who they have become already. Now I have a new little one on the way (BEAMING!!) and I can only hope that they are able to grow up the same way? My sister's children have been 10 years, and now 7 years apart... I just hope the newest member of my family is as blessed as much as my nieces?

I hate to be so sentimental... but when you know a new life is forming... it makes you think about the future?

My MIL just found out she will be a great grandmother for the sixth time. She's really really hoping for a girl - all the older great grand children are boys!

Since she just found out Monday, I'm not sure if there are any names picked out yet but I bet MIL has some suggestions ready.

Congratulations! I hope you get the nephew you're hoping for. Ever more I hope the baby is healthy and happy!

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:47 PM
Cease. Desist.

We have a thread to discuss bullying here.

We probably have a thread to discuss gardening and garden hoses here.

This thread is about the Trayvon Martin case. Let's get back to sleuthing as best we can the events that occurred on Feb. 26 based on the evidence at hand.



So there was no "garden hose incident?" See how lost I am??

Chris_Texas
04-04-2012, 08:48 PM
YES. THEY KNEW HE SPRAYED THEM WITH THE HOSE. They did not care. They thanked us.

The boys were between our side yard and our neighbors yard. they did not see my husband sitting there at the time. It was dark. He had the water hose in his hand as he was getting ready to wash something out. The boys were creeping up in the shadows with their eggs. So he lifted the hose and sprayed.
I love him for it. If that makes me a bully and a psycho, so be it.

I probably would have done EXACTLY the same thing. It would be irresistable. In any case we are not really talking about watering the neighbor children, GZ graduated from a water hose to a handgun. :)

LambChop
04-04-2012, 08:50 PM
So there was no "garden hose incident?" See how lost I am??

Get your GPS out, we're on the road again. I wonder who will quit next??? Seems like a lot of people are either losing their jobs or are being asked to step down over this case. jmo

ynotdivein
04-04-2012, 08:50 PM
The conversation about GZ with a garden hose is fine, with links provided. It is my belief that a poster with good intent tried to share an analogous incident and the conversation became a debate about that situation. That is not ok.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:52 PM
My MIL just found out she will be a great grandmother for the sixth time. She's really really hoping for a girl - all the older great grand children are boys!

Since she just found out Monday, I'm not sure if there are any names picked out yet but I bet MIL has some suggestions ready.

Congratulations! I hope you get the nephew you're hoping for. Ever more I hope the baby is healthy and happy!

Actually, I would LOVE another girl... I just know this is one is a boy. It will be my mother's 3rd grandchild... she has given up on me and my younger sister. My older sister is her only hope! :floorlaugh:

My last niece, would have been named "Ocean Rayne" if it was up to me.. :floorlaugh: That's why I have no children!

Good luck to your family too! Babies are the purest forms of "new beginnings" I am so happy to have another one on the way!

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Can I have a link to the "hose" incident? Pretty please?

Velouria
04-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Get your GPS out, we're on the road again. I wonder who will quit next??? Seems like a lot of people are either losing their jobs or are being asked to step down over this case. jmo

Everyone except our mods. They are getting overtime. :iamashamed:

:gomods:

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:00 PM
I disagree. Their kids were in the act of throwing rotten eggs at a cancer victims house. There is no way they could have accused my DH of assault while they themselves were vandalizing that property,imo/ They also LIED to LE about where their sons were at the time they were throwing the eggs.

But I am pretty surprised about how upset people are about these bratty vandals being sprayed with water. I think I am out of step with the attitude here and I guess I am a bully and not a 'normal' person. Interesting realization but I am not sorry about it. I will spray them myself if they come back again. But I better stay off this thread because I see that I am way out of step and very unpopular, imo.

I was just letting you know that some parents (<modsnip>) no matter what their kids do, the kids are never wrong. And I wouldn't put it past someone like that to bring a lawsuit. Just giving you a heads up because of the definition of assault. You don't have to touch someone to be charged with assault. All GZ had to do was point his gun at TM and it is considered assault. Once you physically touch them it's battery. So essentially GZ was guilty of simple assault by using the hose. It would have been much easier if he had complained to the HOA and let them handle it if the parents refused to stop their harassment. jmo

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:02 PM
Get your GPS out, we're on the road again. I wonder who will quit next??? Seems like a lot of people are either losing their jobs or are being asked to step down over this case. jmo

Can you please send me some links? I have been out all day? Who quit? Someone lost their job?

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:03 PM
Everyone except our mods. They are getting overtime. :gomods:

LOL...no, I didn't mean anyone on here. LOL You're too funny.

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:05 PM
Can you please send me some links? I have been out all day? Who quit? Someone lost their job?

Mr. Oliver quit today. Mr. Wolflinger (I think that is the spelling) stepped down, the chief "reclused' himself.....oh, no that's what "judges" do. I don't know about Mr. Taaffe??? Is he still giving interviews??? Anyone know. jmo

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:06 PM
I am so sorry, but what is the "water hose" incident? I've been on cloud nine all day and haven't been here, so could someone please explain it to me? Or link me?

"George would stick up for a chubby boy in the neighborhood who was being bullied, recalled Austin (who, like Stephanie, asked that his last name not be used). “And if George saw bullies walking by his house, he would pull out his hose and spray them down and tell them they were wasting their time and to go and do something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=4&src=twrhp

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:08 PM
Sorry, ynotdivein....thanks for fixing that for me.

Reader
04-04-2012, 09:10 PM
Trayvon’s death was murder, Congressman Frederica Wilson says

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/03/2729373/trayvons-death-was-murder-congresswoman.html#storylink=cpy

...........Wilson appeared on an online video program hosted by Miami Herald World Editor John Yearwood. In her appearance, Wilson described racial profiling as a pervasive force in this country, and said she fears for the safety of her black son and three black grandsons.

Of the Martin case, Wilson said, “Oh, definitely Mr. Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin ...you can tell from the 911 tapes, and from the girlfriend’s conversation. You can tell from Mr. Zimmerman’s past.”

“He murdered Trayvon,” Wilson repeated. “He hunted him down like you hunt a rabbit.”

More at link....

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:10 PM
Mr. Oliver quit today. Mr. Wolflinger (I think that is the spelling) stepped down, the chief "reclused' himself.....oh, no that's what "judges" do. I don't know about Mr. Taaffe??? Is he still giving interviews??? Anyone know. jmo

Mr. Oliver was the "friend" right?

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Zimmerman's attorney Hal Uhrig disputing "we don't need you to do that" as not being the same thing as being told specifically not to follow Trayvon. Agrees that Zimmerman was acting as neighborhood watch official and asked if it was "wrong" to have had a gun on him replied that it wasn't illegal. Blaming Trayvon for smacking him in the head and breaking his nose which allowed Zimmerman to defend himself.

Don't guys just duke it out anymore? :crazy:

ets this is on Piers Morgan tonight.

TonyGatto
04-04-2012, 09:13 PM
Piers can take some lessons from Lawrence O'Donnell.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:13 PM
Okay, I get the hole "water hose" thing... Didn't realize it had been discussed a lot on the last thread (wasn't here) and I don't want to add or go back to it because I realize it has been... yeah, you know?

Thank you to everyone who updated me really quick! That's why I love this forum!

Beyond Belief
04-04-2012, 09:19 PM
I'm not hearing anything about Trayvon on HLN tonight.

rossva
04-04-2012, 09:19 PM
O/T Adrienne, but you spelled MARTIN's first name wrong in your signature.



He did say he had left his job during the interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. I saved the program on my DVR just so I could rewatch it again because man, that was some of the greatest TV ever. Anyway, I'll go back through and see exactly what it was he said.

He is a very unusual person. I'll definitely leave it at that.


~jmo~

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 09:20 PM
Pierce Morgan and his "British" sensibilities seems to find this ALL very disturbing (Zimmerman not being arrested)
Funny I wrote that before he even mentioned they wouldn't do things this way in Britain!!
Ha!

Desdemona
04-04-2012, 09:21 PM
Question: Did GZ call 911 that night to report the suspicious person, or the police non-emergency number? TIA

lisalei321
04-04-2012, 09:22 PM
I believe it was the non-emergency #

IMO

Sent from LG Esteem using Tapatalk

uvamerica
04-04-2012, 09:25 PM
I grew up living next door to the neighborhood bully. He would stand in his yard and hose anyone and everyone that went by including cars, bikes. One Sunday morning he wet the entire family across the street while they were getting in their car to leave for church. The neighbor called LE, and the bully was taken to juvenile hall. This wasn't the first time someone had gotten fed up and called LE.
This kid was 13yrs old, the hose spraying was a juvenile act.
An adult like GZ doing this, means he's immature, and really doesn't know how to handle himself in these situations. Letting GZ have a weapon was a big mistake. :moo::moo:

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:30 PM
Crump coming off much less defensive than ,well, the defense attorneys. Saying Trayvon had a right to defend himself. Says that body being many yards away from the vehicle supports the contention that Zimmerman had pursued Trayvon.

From Piers Morgan tonight.

Beyond Belief
04-04-2012, 09:31 PM
Did we ever get a time line together for this case?

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 09:33 PM
Crump just asking for a fair trail... not even a conviction (Piers Morgan)
I think Trayvon and his family is worth at LEAST that!!!

Oh no! Ted Nugent up next :sick:

Velouria
04-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Mr. Oliver was the "friend" right?


I think it depends on who you ask. He was a co-worker and seemed to know of George mainly through his wife, who was friends with Zimmerman's mother. Sounds more like an acquaintance to me. At any rate, he had no credibility whatsoever.

Thus far I have not been impressed with anyone who claims to represent GZ's interests - not Oliver, Taafe, Sonner, his brother nor his father. None of them seem to be able to elucidate any facts in a consistent and believable manner, or even sound like they've had a thorough discussion with GZ regarding what happened that night.

IMHO

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:35 PM
I grew up living next door to the neighborhood bully. He would stand in his yard and hose anyone and everyone that went by including cars, bikes. One Sunday morning he wet the entire family across the street while they were getting in their car to leave for church. The neighbor called LE, and the bully was taken to juvenile hall. This wasn't the first time someone had gotten fed up and called LE.
This kid was 13yrs old, the hose spraying was a juvenile act.
An adult like GZ doing this, means he's immature, and really doesn't know how to handle himself in these situations. Letting GZ have a weapon was a big mistake. :moo::moo:

I had a bully once... a little girl that always bit me. Like, she would really bite me hard. I finally cried to my dad about her... and he told me: the next time she bites you... slap her... and slap her hard! Next time she did bite me... I did what my dad told me to do... she never bit me again! I was only 5-years-old!

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Crump talking about Zimmerman's family saying how badly he was beaten and asking the obvious--why no bandaid on head or trip to the hospital?

ME~Still can't believe EMT's would let such a severe head injury go unattended. JMO

suzihawk
04-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Dammit! I was watching AI and didn't switch over to Piers Morgan in time to catch but just the tail end. :(

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 09:40 PM
Ted Nugent talking about SYG as it applies to home invasion!! THAT I believe in... what happened here is NOT the same Mr Nugent...

Velouria
04-04-2012, 09:40 PM
Oh NOOOOO! Now Ted Nugent is chiming in on the case on Piers Morgan.

Thank goodness for the mute button.

JeannaT
04-04-2012, 09:41 PM
Crump just asking for a fair trail... not even a conviction (Piers Morgan)
I think Trayvon and his family is worth at LEAST that!!!

Oh no! Ted Nugent up next :sick:

I don't think there should be a trial if there isn't evidence to support that GZ committed a crime.

It isn't a crime to follow someone, to keep an eye on them once you've called LE. It isn't a crime to shoot someone to death who is causing you grievous harm or a reasonable person would think they were about to cause grievous harm or death.

The video in the police station, the clear version of the video, makes the injuries to the back of GZ's head obvious. The witnesses report that Trayvon was on top of George, as the evidence suggests.

You can't take someone to criminal court just because it's sad that a young man has died. A crime, that's reasonably provable, has to have been committed. I don't want the decision whether to charge someone with a crime to be a result of a popularity vote by the public, or the grief of the family of the deceased. It needs to be made by the court system, the blind lady holding the scales of justice.

This case is appropriate for civil court, where you can seek redress for losses where a crime hasn't occurred.

rbrnmw2
04-04-2012, 09:43 PM
Didn't Trayvon's gf attend his funeral? IIRC his cousin says he met her there. So IMO she didn't wait 3 weeks to report anything, her parents didn't want her to talk to le because she was in a fragile state? IMO moo jmo

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 09:45 PM
I don't think there should be a trial if there isn't evidence to support that GZ committed a crime.

It isn't a crime to follow someone, to keep an eye on them once you've called LE. It isn't a crime to shoot someone to death who is causing you grievous harm or a reasonable person would think they were about to cause grievous harm or death.

The video in the police station, the clear version of the video, makes the injuries to the back of GZ's head obvious. The witnesses report that Trayvon was on top of George, as the evidence suggests.

You can't take someone to criminal court just because it's sad that a young man has died. A crime, that's reasonably provable, has to have been committed.

This case is appropriate for civil court, where you can seek redress for losses where a crime hasn't occurred.

It was a CRIME.. My opinion, my belief and the belief of MANY MANY others. Nothing ANYONE but a court of law can say (or say and say and say over and over again) or do will ever convince me otherwise.

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:46 PM
Dammit! I was watching AI and didn't switch over to Piers Morgan in time to catch but just the tail end. :(


I think it might repeat at midnight. HTH.

vlpate
04-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Crump talking about Zimmerman's family saying how badly he was beaten and asking the obvious--why no bandaid on head or trip to the hospital?

ME~Still can't believe EMT's would let such a severe head injury go unattended. JMO

Many people have died from head injuries that didn't break the skin. The law doesn't require one to sustain discernible injuries to prove self defense.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Oh, there's going to be a trial. George Zimmerman will be charged and arrested for Manslaughter in the next six days. He may even be charged with a separate Federal charge too.

Then we will finally get a Doc. Dump. and be able to see Zimmerman's original statements, his original audio interview, and walk through. We will also get Trayvon's autopsy!

MOO

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:47 PM
"George would stick up for a chubby boy in the neighborhood who was being bullied, recalled Austin (who, like Stephanie, asked that his last name not be used). “And if George saw bullies walking by his house, he would pull out his hose and spray them down and tell them they were wasting their time and to go and do something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=4&src=twrhp

Thanks for that link: On the last page is this statement from RZ SR.:

Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”

Why would GZ be walking to get an address when he didn't know where TM had gone? In one of the videos taken after the shooting if that was GZ's SUV sitting there it was pointed towards the cut through and not parked across the street going the other way. If he did not know where TM was and was sure he was headed toward the back gate why wasn't he down there looking for TM? He had the car and it would take him no time to get down there and back. I mean he was so sure on the LE tape that TM was headed for that back gate.

Could it be that GA was looking for TM in the car and TM could see him through the buildings and was waiting until he thought it was safe to run home? GZ not seeing TM down by the gate while driving down that "next street over" could have circled back and then parked at the cut thru only to get out and find TM hiding behind the buildings????

To me that statement by Mr. RG sounds odd. If GZ did not know where TM was why was he going to check the next street address when he was already on a street parked with an address right there. That is what he would report to LE as the last place he saw TM. Not the next street over???? Something's not right with this statement. And why would he walk to check out the next street just to get an address. Makes no sense???? jmo

JeannaT
04-04-2012, 09:48 PM
It was a CRIME.. My opinion, my belief and the belief of MANY MANY others. Nothing ANYONE but a court of law can say (or say and say and say over and over again) or do will ever convince me otherwise.

The public's opinion on whether a crime has been committed isn't as relevant as the criminal justice system's opinion.

Since I don't see any crime was committed, maybe I kind of have myopic vision on this and don't understand where anyone else sees a crime. It's not a crime to disobey a dispatcher's suggestion. It's not a crime to follow someone after you've called LE. It's not a crime to shoot to kill if you're being beaten up. I don't see any crimes here.

Velouria
04-04-2012, 09:49 PM
This case is appropriate for civil court, where you can seek redress for losses where a crime hasn't occurred.

respectfully snipped

That's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to.

One can also sue in civil court for damages when a crime HAS been committed. IMO, that will happen here, along with criminal charges against GZ.

We don't know yet that there is insufficient evidence to file charges, as we don't have access to all of the information that the SP has.

The lead investigator seemed to think there was enough evidence to arrest GZ that night. Guess we'll just have to wait and see if the the Special Prosecutor agrees with Wolfinger's decision to give him a pass.

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 09:49 PM
Many people have died from head injuries that didn't break the skin. The law doesn't require one to sustain discernible injuries to prove self defense.

I completely agree and EMT's are trained to discern which injuries are problematic. The fact they didn't insist on treatment tells me something. JMO

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:54 PM
From the same article here is another one:

“That was the first thing that came out of the detective’s mouth,” Mr. Martin said. “That he had a squeaky-clean record, a license to carry a weapon and is studying criminal justice.”

Mr. Martin said he asked the officers whether they had checked his son’s record, and they said yes. He said that he asked because he knew that Trayvon had no record's.

So it appears from this statement that LE did not who TM was. How could they check his record if they did not know who he was unless they were able to get into his phone. This would go along with TM's name already on the incident reports that were typed up in the early morning hours. jmo

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 09:55 PM
Oh, there's going to be a trial. George Zimmerman will be charged and arrested for Manslaughter in the next six days. He may even be charged with a separate Federal charge too.

Then we will finally get a Doc. Dump. and be able to see Zimmerman's original statements, his original audio interview, and walk through. We will also get Trayvon's autopsy!

MOO

From your lips to God's ears!!!! :woohoo:

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 09:56 PM
Seriously, I am not worried about an arrest. I think it is coming! I think Zimmerman's lawyer knows it's coming. He wouldn't have released a statement saying his client would "peacefully turn himself in" if he didn't know an arrest was coming!

The good thing about that... is that we will finally get more information. Information that we need to really look into this case. Because Zimmerman has not yet been charged with a crime, the Sunshine Laws have not been to our advantage.

I have a lot of faith that he will be arrested within the next 6 days. Some people may not agree with that... but I believe it is the ONLY way to figure out what happened that night. If he's innocent... he can prove it!

Velouria
04-04-2012, 09:57 PM
Many people have died from head injuries that didn't break the skin. The law doesn't require one to sustain discernible injuries to prove self defense.

I agree with the bolded above. My father nearly died from a subdural hematoma he sustained getting into the car. He hit his head on the top of the door opening and not all that hard, either. It wasn't until two weeks later when my mother noticed he wasn't making any sense that she insisted on taking him to the emergency room, and not a moment too soon.

It's this personal experience that causes me to wonder if Mr. Zimmerman really did in fact, tell the EMTs that he had his head "bashed against the concrete" or had received any other hard blows to the head. I find it hard to believe that a medical tech worth his salt would not insist that he be taken to a hospital and thoroughly checked out under those cirmumstances.

IMO

Yoda
04-04-2012, 09:57 PM
Crump talking about Zimmerman's family saying how badly he was beaten and asking the obvious--why no bandaid on head or trip to the hospital?

ME~Still can't believe EMT's would let such a severe head injury go unattended. JMO

I left a hospital... I had been knocked unconscious, when I came to I could not see, I could not remember the past year. Someone drove me to the hospital. They took xrays of my shoulder because I guess I told them my shoulder hurt. Said nothing was broken and sent me home. Did not clean the abrasions on my head, and did not appear to be concerned about my memory loss or temporary loss of vision. Yep, that was a hospital of a not so small city.

LambChop
04-04-2012, 09:57 PM
I completely agree and EMT's are trained to discern which injuries are problematic. The fact they didn't insist on treatment tells me something. JMO

I would think they would have covered a gash if there was one to keep the wound clean to prevent an infection. jmo

ynotdivein
04-04-2012, 10:04 PM
Bumping OP.

Read it. Read it now, read it often.


Please continue here.
Remember the rules: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
Remember the "ignore" feature on your profile page.
Please stick with the facts as reported by LE or MSM, and link them. Link them often if necessary.
Please clearly state when it is your opinion. If you are making an inference please clearly outline and link the facts and evidence that have led you to form that inference. Wild speculation about any case player has no place here.
Please PM a mod with any questions or concerns and alert any TOS violations or offensive posts.
And finally, PLEASE address one another respectfully. Last reminder.

We will no longer allow discussion of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the Black Panther protest(s). There are way too many <modsnips> and timeouts to continue this discussion. We will allow MSM links to such protests, but no discussion.
We need to stick to the facts of this case and that's our discussion here. Please, we ask that you do what you do best - SLEUTH THE CASE.
Blogs and Twitter links and discussion of them are allowed only if it's an approved WS link or a link from main stream media (MSM).


Thread #1 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165269&highlight=Trayvon)
Thread #2 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166351&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #3 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166513&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #4 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166660&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #5 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166793)
Thread #6 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166872&highlight=Trayvon+Martin)
Thread #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167001&highlight=Trayvon+Martin)
Thread #8 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167151&highlight=y%2Fo+teen)
Thread #9 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167219)
Thread #10 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167312)
Thread #11 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167357)
Thread #12 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167420)
Thread #13 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167490)
Thread #14 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7746243#post7746243)
Thread #15 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7749539#post7749539)
Thread #16 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7753618#post7753618)

Clairfication on WS stance regarding the "victim friendly" issue.
I had a discussion with the owners about how we were to deal with this. This is what I was advised:
At this point in the investigation we don't KNOW exactly who ALL the victims are now. We KNOW that Trayvon is a victim, because he is dead. However, news breaks and new leaks come forth everyday and it is still unclear whether Zimmerman was a victim of any violence. Until more verifiable FACTS are available, WS has chosen to err on the side of treating both the confirmed (Trayvon) AND potential (Zimmerman) victim, both as victims.
Like I said, that may change after we have more verifiable information
Hope that helps clear this up.
Please bump as needed.

Just a reminder:
WS does not permit links that request or suggest sending donations without the clear permission of the owners . This is to protect our members and for no other reason.
__________________

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 10:09 PM
I left a hospital... I had been knocked unconscious, when I came to I could not see, I could not remember the past year. Someone drove me to the hospital. They took xrays of my shoulder because I guess I told them my shoulder hurt. Said nothing was broken and sent me home. Did not clean the abrasions on my head, and did not appear to be concerned about my memory loss or temporary loss of vision. Yep, that was a hospital of a not so small city.

That is horrible and sorry you went throught that. There is negligence all over the place--but this was a homicide and per the shooter's family he was battered to the point of being on the verge of living in diapers? Something is off here somewhere. JMO

Dr.Fessel
04-04-2012, 10:15 PM
I had two 1 inch cuts on the back of my head from getting it slammed into cement by my marine brother in-law while we were both home from leave at the same time. During the ride to he hospital to get it sewn up my sister was holding a towel on my head. When we got there the towel and my shirt were soaked with blood. The whole shirt was soaked in blood, top to bottom.

LambChop
04-04-2012, 10:15 PM
That is horrible and sorry you went throught that. There is negligence all over the place--but this was a homicide and per the shooter's family he was battered to the point of being on the verge of living in diapers? Something is off here somewhere. JMO

Plus I'm not sure that an EMT working for the fire department is under the same stress you would see in an ER on a busy night. Afterall they are the first to see a victim and in most cases have already treated the injuries by the time they get to the hospital. I agree, something is off. jmo

deelytful1
04-04-2012, 10:18 PM
I had two 1 inch cuts on the back of my head from getting it slammed into cement by my marine brother in-law while we were both home from leave at the same time. During the ride to he hospital to get it sewn up my sister was holding a towel on my head. When we got there the towel and my shirt were soaked with blood. The whole shirt was soaked in blood, top to bottom.

was it slammed over and over again like GZs father claims happened to him?

daisy7
04-04-2012, 10:19 PM
While protests and rallies continued in Miami and Tallahassee demanding murder charges in the Trayvon Martin case, the teen’s shooter bolstered his legal defense by hiring another veteran attorney to represent him.

Former Gainesville police officer and University of Florida grad Hal Uhrig appeared on the Fox affiliate saying he’d been hired to help defend George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer at the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision in Sanford.

Uhrig, a criminal defense attorney, is a familiar face for Orlando TV viewers: he was a legal analyst on that Fox station during the Casey Anthony case.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/04/2732242/new-defense-lawyer-hired-as-rallies.html#storylink=cpy

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 10:19 PM
I agree with the bolded above. My father nearly died from a subdural hematoma he sustained getting into the car. He hit his head on the top of the door opening and not all that hard, either. It wasn't until two weeks later when my mother noticed he wasn't making any sense that she insisted on taking him to the emergency room, and not a moment too soon.

It's this personal experience that causes me to wonder if Mr. Zimmerman really did in fact, tell the EMTs that he had his head "bashed against the concrete" or had received any other hard blows to the head. I find it hard to believe that a medical tech worth his salt would not insist that he be taken to a hospital and thoroughly checked out under those cirmumstances.

IMO

**WS verified Paramedic here**

The paramedic could insist all he wants but if GZ is alert and oriented to person, place and time he has the right to refuse all or portions of treatment or transportation. To touch the patient otherwise would be assault and battery and to transport the patient would be kidnapping. Unless GZ was incapacitated to the point where the paramedics were to believe that he was unable to make prudent decisions for himself, then they have to respect his wishes and not transport him to the hospital. He should be made aware of all the risks of refusing transport and made to sign a release of care prior to the paramedics clearing the scene. Without seeing the medical report, we are unable to ascertain whether they offered to bandage his wounds or if the bleeding from the wound had stopped. If GZ was insistent that the medics leave him alone, it is very possible that they assessed him, signed him off and cleared the scene.

grandmaj
04-04-2012, 10:23 PM
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo45391.pdf

Here is the standard of care protocol review for Sanford which emphasizes report writing..

If Mr. Zimmerman was not transported I have no doubt he signed a refusal of care form. I served in another state for 10 years as an FF/EMT. Believe me if someone refuses to go to the hospital they sign a form that says they refuse transport. It is CYA to avoid lawsuits. However there are protocols in every department which state that you can involve law enforcement to force a transport if you feel the refusal would be severely detrimental to the well being of the patient and that the person refusing transportation is not able to make that determination on their own.

Pay particular attention to page 31 & 32. It spells out what must be on the report. It specifically specifies refusal to care or as we used to refer to it, refusal for transport.

Sanford is a full-time department with over 400 employees both Basic level and paramedic level. This is a peer review document. To teach how to write reports in a consistent uniform manner and to review whether their reports meet the standards set for this agency. Recommendations were made at the end of this report for improvement. This is a very progressive step in ensuring this department met all requirements of quality patient care in reporting IMO.

The medical records of Mr. Zimmerman can be subpenaed. They will be detailed to the specifics of each and every injury.

edited to add the last phrase in bold because ECS is correct if they are of sane mind you cannot force the transport.

LambChop
04-04-2012, 10:24 PM
**WS verified Paramedic here**

The paramedic could insist all he wants but if GZ is alert and oriented to person, place and time he has the right to refuse all or portions of treatment or transportation. To touch the patient otherwise would be assault and battery and to transport the patient would be kidnapping. Unless GZ was incapacitated to the point where the paramedics were to believe that he was unable to make prudent decisions for himself, then they have to respect his wishes and not transport him to the hospital. He should be made aware of all the risks of refusing transport and made to sign a release of care prior to the paramedics clearing the scene. Without seeing the medical report, we are unable to ascertain whether they offered to bandage his wounds or if the bleeding from the wound had stopped. If GZ was insistent that the medics leave him alone, it is very possible that they assessed him, signed him off and cleared the scene.

It appears GZ has a bruise or gash on his head from the pictures but how well do the paramedic's clean up a victim if they find no injuries or open wounds. Do they make sure that all the blood is cleaned off him or could those red spots we see in the video be dried blood from TM? jmo

Reader
04-04-2012, 10:27 PM
I think it depends on who you ask. He was a co-worker and seemed to know of George mainly through his wife, who was friends with Zimmerman's mother. Sounds more like an acquaintance to me. At any rate, he had no credibility whatsoever.

Thus far I have not been impressed with anyone who claims to represent GZ's interests - not Oliver, Taafe, Sonner, his brother nor his father. None of them seem to be able to elucidate any facts in a consistent and believable manner, or even sound like they've had a thorough discussion with GZ regarding what happened that night.

IMHO

I read an article about GZ's lawyer that said they have only talked by phone. Will get back with the link in a sec....

Dr.Fessel
04-04-2012, 10:30 PM
was it slammed over and over again like GZs father claims happened to him? It was at least two times. LOL I was drunk though so I was feelin no pain.:rocker:

RANCH
04-04-2012, 10:32 PM
**WS verified Paramedic here**

The paramedic could insist all he wants but if GZ is alert and oriented to person, place and time he has the right to refuse all or portions of treatment or transportation. To touch the patient otherwise would be assault and battery and to transport the patient would be kidnapping. Unless GZ was incapacitated to the point where the paramedics were to believe that he was unable to make prudent decisions for himself, then they have to respect his wishes and not transport him to the hospital. He should be made aware of all the risks of refusing transport and made to sign a release of care prior to the paramedics clearing the scene. Without seeing the medical report, we are unable to ascertain whether they offered to bandage his wounds or if the bleeding from the wound had stopped. If GZ was insistent that the medics leave him alone, it is very possible that they assessed him, signed him off and cleared the scene.
Thank you for your post. I always thought that it would be a bit out of line for LE to have EMT's strap a person down and take them to the hospital against that person wish's because it would be a good idea for further testing to be done.

i.b.nora
04-04-2012, 10:32 PM
Coming up next on Lawrence O'Donnell is Charles Blow, they will be talking about Trayvon.

suzihawk
04-04-2012, 10:32 PM
O'Donnell and Blow are going to "help" Zimmerman's new attorney get up to speed. LOL

Up next on MSNBC

LambChop
04-04-2012, 10:33 PM
I read an article about GZ's lawyer that said they have only talked by phone. Will get back with the link in a sec....

Well, his attorney is not suppose to lie so if he said GZ was injured and the info comes from GZ, the attorney is not lying because he did not see him face-to-face. He's just taking GZ's word for it. jmo

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 10:33 PM
It appears GZ has a bruise or gash on his head from the pictures but how well do the paramedic's clean up a victim if they find no injuries or open wounds. Do they make sure that all the blood is cleaned off him or could those red spots we see in the video be dried blood from TM? jmo

If it were me, I would have offered to clean him up a bit. It's just the right/nice thing to do. I can't say that they did or didn't but it's not out of the realm of possibility that they cleaned him up a bit if/when he refused transport. He may not have been spic n' span clean but they might have wiped off some of the major blood. We carry anti-bacterial/anti-viral wipes for just such occasions.

Angelonline
04-04-2012, 10:33 PM
I had two 1 inch cuts on the back of my head from getting it slammed into cement by my marine brother in-law while we were both home from leave at the same time. During the ride to he hospital to get it sewn up my sister was holding a towel on my head. When we got there the towel and my shirt were soaked with blood. The whole shirt was soaked in blood, top to bottom.
Head wounds that break the skin, normally bleed profusely, due to the blood supply to the head.

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 10:37 PM
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo45391.pdf

Here is the standard of care protocol review for Sanford which emphasizes report writing..

If Mr. Zimmerman was not transported I have no doubt he signed a refusal of care form. I served in another state for 10 years as an FF/EMT. Believe me if someone refuses to go to the hospital they sign a form that says they refuse transport. It is CYA to avoid lawsuits. However there are protocols in every department which state that you can involve law enforcement to force a transport if you feel the refusal would be severely detrimental to the well being of the patient and that the person refusing transportation is not able to make that determination on their own.

Pay particular attention to page 31 & 32. It spells out what must be on the report. It specifically specifies refusal to care or as we used to refer to it, refusal for transport.

Sanford is a full-time department with over 400 employees both Basic level and paramedic level. This is a peer review document. To teach how to write reports in a consistent uniform manner and to review whether their reports meet the standards set for this agency. Recommendations were made at the end of this report for improvement. This is a very progressive step in ensuring this department met all requirements of quality patient care in reporting IMO.

The medical records of Mr. Zimmerman can be subpenaed. They will be detailed to the specifics of each and every injury.

edited to add the last phrase in bold because ECS is correct if they are of sane mind you cannot force the transport.


Thanks GrandmaJ. They would have to follow their local protocols and they might have to get their medical control involved if their protocols demand it (our system doesn't). You are correct that there are ways that you can take someone against their will but it doesn't happen too often. I've only done it a couple of times in 25 years and they were pretty out of the ordinary circumstances.

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 10:38 PM
Can anyone write a blog on Webslueths? I would love to write a blog? I have so many things going through my mind that I would like to express that I know would not apply to just this thread?

razorback
04-04-2012, 10:38 PM
I had two 1 inch cuts on the back of my head from getting it slammed into cement by my marine brother in-law while we were both home from leave at the same time. During the ride to he hospital to get it sewn up my sister was holding a towel on my head. When we got there the towel and my shirt were soaked with blood. The whole shirt was soaked in blood, top to bottom.



:seeya:

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 10:39 PM
It was at least two times. LOL I was drunk though so I was feelin no pain.:rocker:

:floorlaugh:Starting to understand so many things better now. :slap:

LolaMoon08
04-04-2012, 10:39 PM
Can anyone write a blog on Webslueths? I would love to write a blog? I have so many things going through my mind that I would like to express that I know would not apply to just this thread?

ETA: I see how I can start a blog! I should have looked before posting!

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 10:42 PM
Head wounds that break the skin, normally bleed profusely, due to the blood supply to the head.

Not necessarily. I've seen minor scratches bleed like a stuck pig and I've seen deep lacerations that hardly bled at all. In general, the head is very vascular but there are many factors as to how much an individual bleeds and for how long they bleed.

grandmaj
04-04-2012, 10:44 PM
Thanks GrandmaJ. They would have to follow their local protocols and they might have to get their medical control involved if their protocols demand it (our system doesn't). You are correct that there are ways that you can take someone against their will but it doesn't happen too often. I've only done it a couple of times in 25 years and they were pretty out of the ordinary circumstances.

Absolutely true. I had a few and they were head injuries where the person was combative, confused and the mechanism of injury was such that we suspected closed head injury.

I feel confident that the department EMS did not suspect any major injury in that Mr. Zimmerman refused, he was oriented, and EMS allowed the refusal.

Thanks for your insight. :blowkiss:

Boytwnmom
04-04-2012, 10:46 PM
on Piers. Caveat: I only heard Piers say they said that as I missed the actual lawyers! But there was some discussion about it and that's when one of the lawyers said how he didn't need to meet with him and how the police had done a voice stress test. That's about all I got from it.

My not very nice, but quite possible thought is that the lawyers have deliberately stayed away so they will not be restricting themselves regarding testimony and evidence they may want to introduce like, for example, about GZ's horrible injuries. In general, ethical rules prohibit certain things that may come into play here. A lawyer can't make a false statement of fact to a court, a lawyer can't make a false statement of material fact to a third person and a lawyer can't engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. So, the less you know the more you can allow to be introduced. That's also why most attorneys don't want to know if you're guilty because that really ties their hands! Who ever said a trial was a search for truth was probably never in a courtroom, especially not in FL! (not fair, I know, but the Pinellas 12 will never be forgotten!)



I read an article about GZ's lawyer that said they have only talked by phone. Will get back with the link in a sec....

Reader
04-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Zimmerman's lawyer: Cub Scout leader, martial-arts expert, one-man law firm

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story

Craig Sonner has never defended a client accused in a homicide, but he now represents George Zimmerman, the man at the center of one of the nation's most racially divisive shootings in years.

And Sonner predicts he'll have no problem clearing Zimmerman.

"I believed his story of how he was defending himself," said 47-year-old Sonner, a one-man Altamonte Springs law firm. "I've already got a number of experts lined up to take this one … I don't think we're going to have a problem exonerating George Zimmerman."
-------

Sonner said the night he walked off the [O'Donnell] set that the "only reason I'm talking now is that this case has spun so out of control," he said. Zimmerman "is not a racist. This was a case of self-defense."

And Sonner is no longer Zimmerman's lone defender.

Late Tuesday, veteran Orlando-area criminal-defense attorney Hal Uhrig, who often works on cases with Sonner, announced that he was joining the defense team.

He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police.

Both lawyers said they never have met Zimmerman face to face.

"Because of the danger he faces, we communicate only by phone," Sonner said.
-------

As of Tuesday morning, neither Sonner nor Zimmerman had talked with anyone in the office of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, the state attorney appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to take over the investigation and decide whether to charge Zimmerman.

If she convenes a grand jury, Zimmerman will be there, Sonner said. If she calls, saying she's going to file charges, Zimmerman will surrender.

"It's still true that we're cooperating fully with law enforcement," Sonner said.

The basis of his defense: Florida's stand-your-ground law, which allows a person who reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm to use lethal force.


More at link....

LambChop
04-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Absolutely true. I had a few and they were head injuries where the person was combative, confused and the mechanism of injury was such that we suspected closed head injury.

I feel confident that the department EMS did not suspect any major injury in that Mr. Zimmerman refused, he was oriented, and EMS allowed the refusal.

Thanks for your insight. :blowkiss:

It was reported (and you may not know if this is possible) that GZ had a gash on his head and went to the doctor's the following day only to have the doctor say that the injury had healed and he could no longer do stitches? Does that sound reasonable?

Beyond Belief
04-04-2012, 10:51 PM
At least 3 times I have stood up and whacked the back of my head on our steel hurricane awning, not alot of blood but definite black out for a few seconds and a few seconds to come out of the stunned state. imo

Nova
04-04-2012, 10:54 PM
"George would stick up for a chubby boy in the neighborhood who was being bullied, recalled Austin (who, like Stephanie, asked that his last name not be used). “And if George saw bullies walking by his house, he would pull out his hose and spray them down and tell them they were wasting their time and to go and do something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=4&src=twrhp

Spraying kids he believed to be bullies just for walking down his street?

Okay, THAT's out of line and a far cry from what has been discussed here for so many pages.

And the reason it is wrong is not because water is going to kill a kid, but because GZ seems to have appointed himself judge, jury and executioner and found nothing wrong with doing so. Which in turn may have everything to do with what happened to TM.

TonyGatto
04-04-2012, 10:55 PM
on Piers. Caveat: I only heard Piers say they said that as I missed the actual lawyers! But there was some discussion about it and that's when one of the lawyers said how he didn't need to meet with him and how the police had done a voice stress test. That's about all I got from it.

My not very nice, but quite possible thought is that the lawyers have deliberately stayed away so they will not be restricting themselves regarding testimony and evidence they may want to introduce like, for example, about GZ's horrible injuries. In general, ethical rules prohibit certain things that may come into play here. A lawyer can't make a false statement of fact to a court, a lawyer can't make a false statement of material fact to a third person and a lawyer can't engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. So, the less you know the more you can allow to be introduced. That's also why most attorneys don't want to know if you're guilty because that really ties their hands! Who ever said a trial was a search for truth was probably never in a courtroom, especially not in FL! (not fair, I know, but the Pinellas 12 will never be forgotten!)

I can't remember a case where defense attorneys don't meet with their client in person.

Boytwnmom
04-04-2012, 10:55 PM
fell and hit his head on the drawer corner of his captains bed. His brother started screaming and we ran in and A's back was covered in blood. I was never so scared in my life-I thought he was going to bleed to death-he was totally freaked out and so was B. We lived out in the country then, no local police dept, volunteer fire and the nearest ambulance was in the next town where the hospital was so we just drove right to the ER where they calmly stapled the back of his head together and calmed him down. Poor B though was so freaked he couldn't stop crying about his brothers head, all the blood and the STAPLE-they put a big staple in his head-he never did get over THAT! A didn't care because he couldn't SEE it.




Head wounds that break the skin, normally bleed profusely, due to the blood supply to the head.

LambChop
04-04-2012, 10:57 PM
I can't remember a case where defense attorneys don't meet with their client in person.

I would think initial eye contact would be important. jmo

Nova
04-04-2012, 11:05 PM
The public's opinion on whether a crime has been committed isn't as relevant as the criminal justice system's opinion.

Since I don't see any crime was committed, maybe I kind of have myopic vision on this and don't understand where anyone else sees a crime. It's not a crime to disobey a dispatcher's suggestion. It's not a crime to follow someone after you've called LE. It's not a crime to shoot to kill if you're being beaten up. I don't see any crimes here.

I assume it also is not a crime to fight back against an assailant with a gun.

So I guess this is just a case of "Oopsy daisy! No harm, no foul."

Except a kid is dead.

suzihawk
04-04-2012, 11:10 PM
I would think initial eye contact would be important. jmo

Uhrig said he didn't feel the need to see his client eye to eye.

vlpate
04-04-2012, 11:11 PM
Head wounds that break the skin, normally bleed profusely, due to the blood supply to the head.

Right, which makes my point - blood loss from a head wound only makes it look worse than it is. IOW, if he had blood dripping from his ears, I think the same conversation would be going on. "All that blood means nothing, a small head wound would cause massive blood loss". JMO

TonyGatto
04-04-2012, 11:13 PM
Uhrig said he didn't feel the need to see his client eye to eye.

Yeah I heard that. Just feel there's something more to it, which may simply be that GZ is far, far away -- maybe even out of the country --which I've suggested before.

uvamerica
04-04-2012, 11:14 PM
I would think initial eye contact would be important. jmo

How many lawyers take cases over the phone without meeting the client ? And this case is over a month old now. GZ has had the first lawyer for at least a what a couple of weeks ?

:moo:

highflyer
04-04-2012, 11:15 PM
Yeah I heard that. Just feel there's something more to it, which may simply be that GZ is far, far away -- maybe even out of the country --which I've suggested before.

I've also wondered about that.

Dr.Fessel
04-04-2012, 11:19 PM
:seeya: Hi Razorback :seeya: It was back in the day.

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 11:20 PM
It was reported (and you may not know if this is possible) that GZ had a gash on his head and went to the doctor's the following day only to have the doctor say that the injury had healed and he could no longer do stitches? Does that sound reasonable?


BBM:

Totally reasonable. Usually they won't stitch if it's been longer than 6 hours or so. It also depends on what kind of wound he had. Was it an abrasion or laceration. Was the laceration smooth or jagged. Was it deep or shallow, etc.

Dr.Fessel
04-04-2012, 11:20 PM
:floorlaugh:Starting to understand so many things better now. :slap: :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

jjenny
04-04-2012, 11:23 PM
Zimmerman's lawyer: Cub Scout leader, martial-arts expert, one-man law firm

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story

Craig Sonner has never defended a client accused in a homicide, but he now represents George Zimmerman, the man at the center of one of the nation's most racially divisive shootings in years.
....

Never defended a client accused of homicide? Why did Zimmerman get this guy? I mean, it's no brainier to me, if you are facing potential charges get a lawyer experienced in defending this type of allegations.

Desdemona
04-04-2012, 11:23 PM
Questions:

Is it correct that one ambulance responded to the scene, and the call for a second rescue unit was later rescinded/canceled?

And is it correct that TM was pronounced dead at the scene and his body was therefore not transported to a hospital, but rather to the ME?

Was TM's body transported to the ME in the ambulance that had reported to the scene, or via some other conveyance? And who treated GZ at the scene?

IOW, was the the second unit canceled because it wasn't needed for GZ, or because it wasn't needed for TM?

TIA

suzihawk
04-04-2012, 11:32 PM
Spraying kids he believed to be bullies just for walking down his street?

Okay, THAT's out of line and a far cry from what has been discussed here for so many pages.

And the reason it is wrong is not because water is going to kill a kid, but because GZ seems to have appointed himself judge, jury and executioner and found nothing wrong with doing so. Which in turn may have everything to do with what happened to TM.

Exactly. It fits the pattern of him targeting those he thinks he can push around and bully so he can be the big man on campus. MOO

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 11:32 PM
Questions:

Is it correct that one ambulance responded to the scene, and the call for a second rescue unit was later rescinded/canceled?

And is it correct that TM was pronounced dead at the scene and his body was therefore not transported to a hospital, but rather to the ME?

Was TM's body transported to the ME in the ambulance that had reported to the scene, or via some other conveyance? And who treated GZ at the scene?

IOW, was the the second unit canceled because it wasn't needed for GZ, or because it wasn't needed for TM?

TIA

To answer your questions.....yes!

More than likely they worked on TM until he was met the criteria for termination of resuscitation. Then they probably checked on GZ and cancelled the other ambulance. TM would have been left on scene and transported by the medical examiner.

grandmaj
04-04-2012, 11:33 PM
It was reported (and you may not know if this is possible) that GZ had a gash on his head and went to the doctor's the following day only to have the doctor say that the injury had healed and he could no longer do stitches? Does that sound reasonable?

I can't answer that question LambChop. Sorry. I don't know the answer.

kimpage
04-04-2012, 11:33 PM
If a head injury is bad couldnt EMS have forced GZ to go to the hospital????? Why risk it being something serious couldnt they get sued???? IMHO






OT: I was in a car accident hit a telephone pole...I was out of car walking and told officer no way was i going to hospital, he said ok...EMS show up as i am sitting talking they asked if i wore a seatbelt i said no..Well they literally laid me on the ground put neckbrace on and made me go to hospital by ambulance...I was not seriously injured but was seriously ticked off....LOL

Helplessly Hoping
04-04-2012, 11:33 PM
How many lawyers take cases over the phone without meeting the client ? And this case is over a month old now. GZ has had the first lawyer for at least a what a couple of weeks ?

:moo:


Good point. I don't think, as a defendant, I would want a lawyer I hadn't met either unless it was one of the big guns we all are familiar with now.

ecs5298
04-04-2012, 11:36 PM
If a head injury is bad couldnt EMS have forced GZ to go to the hospital????? Why risk it being something serious couldnt they get sued???? IMHO






OT: I was in a car accident hit a telephone pole...I was out of car walking and told officer no way was i going to hospital, he said ok...EMS show up as i am sitting talking they asked if i wore a seatbelt i said no..Well they literally laid me on the ground put neckbrace on and made me go to hospital by ambulance...I was not seriously injured but was seriously ticked off....LOL

See my post up thread. Basically...if he's awake and alert and in his right mind....no...they can't make him.

uvamerica
04-04-2012, 11:39 PM
Good point. I don't think, as a defendant, I would want a lawyer I hadn't met either unless it was one of the big guns we all are familiar with now.

:rocker:
Even with the big guns I'd still want to see him/her, I'd want them to see me also if I were hurt that bad and innocent to boot !

Desdemona
04-04-2012, 11:41 PM
To answer your questions.....yes!

More than likely they worked on TM until he was met the criteria for termination of resuscitation. Then they probably checked on GZ and cancelled the other ambulance. TM would have been left on scene and transported by the medical examiner.Wow, you explained that so succinctly. Makes perfect sense IMO. Thank You!!

Reader
04-04-2012, 11:42 PM
From the link above

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story



The basis of his defense: Florida's stand-your-ground law, which allows a person who reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm to use lethal force.

Question: How can he claim this defense when HE was the one to pursue and confront Trayvon?

If he was in fear of Trayvon all he had to do was stay in his vehicle and let the LE, who he himself had called, do their job.

If you are in fear of someone you don't chase them, start an argument which leads to a fight which you know you can win because you have a gun, and FINALLY can stop those ******** from getting away....

Oh, wait.....

IMO

Reader
04-04-2012, 11:47 PM
If a head injury is bad couldnt EMS have forced GZ to go to the hospital????? Why risk it being something serious couldnt they get sued???? IMHO






OT: I was in a car accident hit a telephone pole...I was out of car walking and told officer no way was i going to hospital, he said ok...EMS show up as i am sitting talking they asked if i wore a seatbelt i said no..Well they literally laid me on the ground put neckbrace on and made me go to hospital by ambulance...I was not seriously injured but was seriously ticked off....LOL

BBM - I think it was explained above that the person would have to sign a release....

Adrienne37
04-04-2012, 11:47 PM
See my post up thread. Basically...if he's awake and alert and in his right mind....no...they can't make him.

EMS can't make him but can't the police drive him to the hospital themselves if they determined they were going to detain him and he had injuries that would warrant examination by a physician? Every hospital I've worked for in the state of Florida, we've always had many persons escorted in by LE to be assessed and cleared prior to being taken to the jail, questioning or otherwise. Why would LE assume responsibility for a person with a possible head injury if they weren't checked and cleared by a physician and then had a seizure or lost consciousness once they were at the jail? They could have the potential to open themselves up to a major lawsuit if the person that was detained wasn't cleared by a physician and ended up being paralyzed or perhaps even died.


~jmo~

Allusonz
04-04-2012, 11:56 PM
on Piers. Caveat: I only heard Piers say they said that as I missed the actual lawyers! But there was some discussion about it and that's when one of the lawyers said how he didn't need to meet with him and how the police had done a voice stress test. That's about all I got from it.

My not very nice, but quite possible thought is that the lawyers have deliberately stayed away so they will not be restricting themselves regarding testimony and evidence they may want to introduce like, for example, about GZ's horrible injuries. In general, ethical rules prohibit certain things that may come into play here. A lawyer can't make a false statement of fact to a court, a lawyer can't make a false statement of material fact to a third person and a lawyer can't engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. So, the less you know the more you can allow to be introduced. That's also why most attorneys don't want to know if you're guilty because that really ties their hands! Who ever said a trial was a search for truth was probably never in a courtroom, especially not in FL! (not fair, I know, but the Pinellas 12 will never be forgotten!)

Can someone confirm for me whether this statement is accurate?

"He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police"


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-03/news/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403_1_defense-team-lawrence-o-donnell-wofl-channel

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me with this.

RANCH
04-04-2012, 11:58 PM
From the link above

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story




Question: How can he claim this defense when HE was the one to pursue and confront Trayvon?

If he was in fear of Trayvon all he had to do was stay in his vehicle and let the LE, who he himself had called, do their job.

If you are in fear of someone you don't chase them, start an argument which leads to a fight which you know you can win because you have a gun, and FINALLY can stop those ******** from getting away....

Oh, wait.....

IMO
Apparently GZ is claiming that he lost sight of TM and was returning to his truck when he was then attacked by TM.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in thisinvestigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you followinghim”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The calltaker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck tomeet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Zimmerman-Martin-Shooting

Adrienne37
04-04-2012, 11:59 PM
Can someone confirm for me whether this statement is true?

"He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police"

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me with this.

He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

rbrnmw2
04-05-2012, 12:01 AM
on Piers. Caveat: I only heard Piers say they said that as I missed the actual lawyers! But there was some discussion about it and that's when one of the lawyers said how he didn't need to meet with him and how the police had done a voice stress test. That's about all I got from it.

My not very nice, but quite possible thought is that the lawyers have deliberately stayed away so they will not be restricting themselves regarding testimony and evidence they may want to introduce like, for example, about GZ's horrible injuries. In general, ethical rules prohibit certain things that may come into play here. A lawyer can't make a false statement of fact to a court, a lawyer can't make a false statement of material fact to a third person and a lawyer can't engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. So, the less you know the more you can allow to be introduced. That's also why most attorneys don't want to know if you're guilty because that really ties their hands! Who ever said a trial was a search for truth was probably never in a courtroom, especially not in FL! (not fair, I know, but the Pinellas 12 will never be forgotten!)

It is my personal feeling that the main reason GZ is secluded is because his nose and head were not very injured and folks would be looking for evidence of said injuries IMO :moo:

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

ecs5298
04-05-2012, 12:01 AM
EMS can't make him but can't the police drive him to the hospital themselves if they determined they were going to detain him and he had injuries that would warrant examination by a physician? Every hospital I've worked for in the state of Florida, we've always had many persons escorted in by LE to be assessed and cleared prior to being taken to the jail, questioning or otherwise. Why would LE assume responsibility for a person with a possible head injury if they weren't checked and cleared by a physician and then had a seizure or lost consciousness once they were at the jail? They could have the potential to open themselves up to a major lawsuit if the person that was detained wasn't cleared by a physician and ended up being paralyzed or perhaps even died.


~jmo~


Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:01 AM
Quote:
If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in thisinvestigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you followinghim”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The calltaker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck tomeet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Z...artin-Shooting

Just more garbage the city of Sanford is trying to shove down our throats and make us believe.


~jmo~

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 12:03 AM
He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~
BBM

Do you have a source to show that polygraphs are never admissible in court?

jjenny
04-05-2012, 12:03 AM
Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

Did he refuse medical help? I find it very bizarre because it's in his best interests to document his injuries.

Garland
04-05-2012, 12:03 AM
From the link above

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story

Question: How can he claim this defense when HE was the one to pursue and confront Trayvon?

If he was in fear of Trayvon all he had to do was stay in his vehicle and let the LE, who he himself had called, do their job.

If you are in fear of someone you don't chase them, start an argument which leads to a fight which you know you can win because you have a gun, and FINALLY can stop those ******** from getting away....

Oh, wait....

IMO

I agree. Plus I think that this is also a case of racism because Trayvon was African-American.

uvamerica
04-05-2012, 12:04 AM
He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

I've only seen/heard that statement made by Zimmerman"s lawyer, has LE backed it up ?

Reader
04-05-2012, 12:04 AM
Apparently GZ is claiming that he lost sight of TM and was returning to his truck when he was then attacked by TM.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Zimmerman-Martin-Shooting

Thanks for the response...I just don't believe it happened that way...IMO

jjenny
04-05-2012, 12:04 AM
It is my personal feeling that main reason GZ is secluded is because his nose and head were not very injured and folks would be looking for evidence of said injuries know IMO :moo:

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

crocus
04-05-2012, 12:05 AM
So what was Trayvon doing that made Zimmerman call LE?

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:07 AM
BBM

Do you have a source to show that polygraphs are never admissible in court?

What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?
Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.

Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html


The short answer is no. In the Florida case of Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 the Supreme Court of Florida said that lie detector evidence “would not have been admissible directly and it was not admissible by inference.” The reasoning according to the court is that it is not sufficiently reliable to pass the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence under Florida law. "The results of a polygraph test remain inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases because of unreliability." Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1983); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952))
This does not mean that the police or other investigating authorities may not use it for the purpose of investigating a crime or discovering new evidence. The police also claim it is a tool for ruling out suspects. This is probably the least probable justification of its use by the police and is more than likely a less portentious approach to getting persons of interest to voluntarily take one. Although you may pass a polygraph it does not mean the police will rule you out as a suspect in a crime.
If you are charged with a crime or questioned by the police about your potential involvement in a crime, the best rule to follow is to keep your mouth shut until you have spoken with an attorney. You have an absolute right to remain silent and your election to do so cannot be used against your in a court of law. Although the polygraph test itself may not be used in court, your statements made during a polygraph may be used against you if they are inconsistent or shed some light on your guilt. The prosecution must simply refrain from discussing the fact that the statements were made during a polygraph test.


http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html


Admissibility

Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/frequently-asked-questions


Shall I keep going?????

~jmo~

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:08 AM
I've only seen/heard that statement made by Zimmerman"s lawyer, has LE backed it up ?

Not that I'm aware of, only the statement by the lawyer.


~jmo~

ecs5298
04-05-2012, 12:09 AM
Did he refuse medical help? I find it very bizarre because it's in his best interests to document his injuries.

From what I've read, he was evaluated on the scene by EMS and not transported. It would be safe to assume that he refused transport otherwise heads would roll on the EMS side. I haven't seen his refusal paperwork so I can't say exactly what was documented but I'm sure we will in due time due to Florida's Sunshine laws. I could also summize that he felt that PD actually seeing his injuries was documentation enough and that a trip to the hospital was unnecessary but that would be pure conjecture on my part.

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:11 AM
Continuation of the post regarding the admissibility of polygraphic examinations in the court of law in the United States of America.....

United States
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),[49] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[50] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[51]
In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

Polygraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:12 AM
After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

As I seem to recall, he was in hiding long before the Black Panthers put a bounty on his head.


~jmo~

Helplessly Hoping
04-05-2012, 12:12 AM
Can someone confirm for me whether this statement is accurate?

"He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police"


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-03/news/os-george-zimmerman-lawyer-sonner-20120403_1_defense-team-lawrence-o-donnell-wofl-channel

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me with this.

Found this FWIW

In more Zimmerman news, Uhrig told WOFL that his client had passed a voice-stress analysis test when questioned by Sanford police.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/04/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-hires-casey-anthony-tv-analyst.html

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 12:13 AM
What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?
Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.

Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html


The short answer is no. In the Florida case of Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 the Supreme Court of Florida said that lie detector evidence “would not have been admissible directly and it was not admissible by inference.” The reasoning according to the court is that it is not sufficiently reliable to pass the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence under Florida law. "The results of a polygraph test remain inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases because of unreliability." Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1983); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952))
This does not mean that the police or other investigating authorities may not use it for the purpose of investigating a crime or discovering new evidence. The police also claim it is a tool for ruling out suspects. This is probably the least probable justification of its use by the police and is more than likely a less portentious approach to getting persons of interest to voluntarily take one. Although you may pass a polygraph it does not mean the police will rule you out as a suspect in a crime.
If you are charged with a crime or questioned by the police about your potential involvement in a crime, the best rule to follow is to keep your mouth shut until you have spoken with an attorney. You have an absolute right to remain silent and your election to do so cannot be used against your in a court of law. Although the polygraph test itself may not be used in court, your statements made during a polygraph may be used against you if they are inconsistent or shed some light on your guilt. The prosecution must simply refrain from discussing the fact that the statements were made during a polygraph test.


http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html


Admissibility

Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/frequently-asked-questions


Shall I keep going?????

~jmo~
Your sources conflict themselves. And it appears that they are allowed in court under certain circumstances. So it would appear that polygraph evidence isn't never allowed in court.

JMO

highflyer
04-05-2012, 12:15 AM
After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

Did they just up and threaten and then disappear because I haven't seen anymore about the New Black Panthers? Strange.

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:18 AM
Your sources conflict themselves. And it appears that they are allowed in court under certain circumstances. So it would appear that polygraph evidence isn't never allowed in court.

JMO

My sources do not conflict themselves and in fact <mod snip> the links that were posted, <mod snip> many states do not allow them to be presented in court period; however, there are several states that do. In the state of Florida, it plainly states if both sides agree they can be used. If one party objects, then it would not be allowed in. Looks like a pretty simple thing to understand if you ask me. <mod snip>



~jmo~

Dr.Fessel
04-05-2012, 12:18 AM
So what was Trayvon doing that made Zimmerman call LE?

Walkin about.

Velouria
04-05-2012, 12:21 AM
EMS can't make him but can't the police drive him to the hospital themselves if they determined they were going to detain him and he had injuries that would warrant examination by a physician? Every hospital I've worked for in the state of Florida, we've always had many persons escorted in by LE to be assessed and cleared prior to being taken to the jail, questioning or otherwise. Why would LE assume responsibility for a person with a possible head injury if they weren't checked and cleared by a physician and then had a seizure or lost consciousness once they were at the jail? They could have the potential to open themselves up to a major lawsuit if the person that was detained wasn't cleared by a physician and ended up being paralyzed or perhaps even died.


~jmo~

Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

Thank you for weighing in on this subject, ecs.

I'm curious - if you have a patient that you believe may have suffered a closed head injury, then would the fact that they sign a release be sufficient as to relieve you from any liability? What if they are later determined to be suffering from such an injury and subsequently claim they were not competent at the time the release was signed?

crocus
04-05-2012, 12:24 AM
Walkin about. Ain't that something?

HiHater
04-05-2012, 12:25 AM
After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

His brother said that his nose was still broken...that was just last week...:twocents::moo:

rbrnmw2
04-05-2012, 12:28 AM
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&_intl=us&_lang=en-us&_al=off very good article IMO
:thumbup:
Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

crocus
04-05-2012, 12:28 AM
LOL I shall not be held responsible for whatever I may say before, during, or after commission of said incident.

Unleash the lawyers.....

Allusonz
04-05-2012, 12:30 AM
He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

Please look at the post I quoted. I was not able to watch this interview. Since the quote has been challenged I would be appreciative if the lawyers did state that in fact the SPD did adminster a voice stress test.

rbrnmw2
04-05-2012, 12:31 AM
Did you watch Piers Morgan earlier tonight? So far Sonner is making Baez look like a cross between Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochran. :)

IMO

My cable and internet have been out for 2 days it's driving me mad can you give me an abridged recap? Preez:D

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

ecs5298
04-05-2012, 12:33 AM
Thank you for weighing in on this subject, ecs.

I'm curious - if you have a patient that you believe may have suffered a closed head injury, then would the fact that they sign a release be sufficient as to relieve you from any liability? What if they are later determined to be suffering from such an injury and subsequently claim they were not competent at the time the release was signed?

Here come the caveats....

If at the time of examination, the patient is alert and oriented to person, place and time and you believe they are of sound mind to make competent decisions, you can allow them to refuse (sometimes medical control has to be consulted per local protocols). Here's the caveat....if at any time, you believe that the patient is injured to the extent that a "reasonable person" would seek medical attention and that the injury is potentially life threatening, you can transport them against their will. This is not to be taken lightly. You are taking a persons rights away. Think of this example.....we respond to a report of a "leg injury" and arrive to find that the persons foot has been amputated and they are refusing to go. No reasonable person would not get an amputated foot treated so I can assume that they are incompetent based on their decision to not get treated. The only caveat to that is if their decision is based on religious grounds. Then we just wait until they lose consciousness and transport them under implied consent. Like I said, I have only forced transport a handful of times in 25 years. Usually I can talk them into going. If they are adamant about refusing, I make sure they are made fully aware of the consequences of refusing. Our new electronic charting actually lists them out on the form so they can read them as well as hearing them from me. If they refuse now and crump later, I just hope I've documented it well enough to cover my hiney!

Hope that helps.

MicciStella
04-05-2012, 12:33 AM
His brother said that his nose was still broken...that was just last week...:twocents::moo:

I really would like to see any PROVE of this...... Anything documented proved by medical examination........

Blessings

Micci

rbrnmw2
04-05-2012, 12:33 AM
Walkin about.

Don't forget the 'in the rain" part

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:34 AM
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&_intl=us&_lang=en-us&_al=off very good article IMO
:thumbup:
Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

Thanks so much!! This article clears up the misconception that Zimmerman is living in seclusion because the Black Panthers put a bounty on his head because according to his "good buddy" Joe Oliver, he moved out of his apartment and went into seclusion the day after Trayvon's murder.



~jmo~

Velouria
04-05-2012, 12:34 AM
His brother said that his nose was still broken...that was just last week...:twocents::moo:

Has it been determined that the brother has actually seen GZ since the alleged nose break occurred, or is this what he was told?

highflyer
04-05-2012, 12:34 AM
Did you watch Piers Morgan earlier tonight? So far Sonner is making Baez look like a cross between Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochran. :)

IMO

I did not see it. At least he did not bolt again apparently.

Dr.Fessel
04-05-2012, 12:36 AM
My sources do not conflict themselves and in fact if you will read the links that were posted, you would see that many states do not allow them to be presented in court period; however, there are several states that do. In the state of Florida, it plainly states if both sides agree they can be used. If one party objects, then it would not be allowed in. Looks like a pretty simple thing to understand if you ask me. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you did your own research on the admissibility of polygraphs in courts and then you can see for yourself exactly what it is you need to know.



~jmo~

I just saw the best case on the ID channel where a LTD was allowed in court. The cops thought they had their guy and gave him a LDT and told him he passed. He kept talking and they found more evidence and ended up charging him for the crime and went to court.

In court he told his lawyer he took a LDT and passed. The lawyer demanded the results be put into the record. LOL LOL the cops had lied to the guy, he failed it all. GUILTY!!:rocker::rocker:

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:37 AM
Has it been determined that the brother has actually seen GZ since the alleged nose break occurred, or is this what he was told?

Didn't we hear Zimmerman's attorney come out the day after that interview and state that the Zimmerman brothers are estranged and it was like a year since the last time they had spoken? I'm pretty I didn't dream that.



~jmo~

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:39 AM
I just saw the best case on the ID channel where a LTD was allowed in court. The cops thought they had their guy and gave him a LDT and told him he passed. He kept talking and they found more evidence and ended up charging him for the crime and went to court.

In court he told his lawyer he took a LDT and passed. The lawyer demanded the results be put into the record. LOL LOL the cops had lied to the guy, he failed it all. GUILTY!!:rocker::rocker:

My favorite channel EVER!!



~jmo~

Reader
04-05-2012, 12:41 AM
He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~


Your sources conflict themselves. And it appears that they are allowed in court under certain circumstances. So it would appear that polygraph evidence isn't never allowed in court.

JMO

I don't see the word 'never' in the original response...

frenchvixen
04-05-2012, 12:42 AM
The public's opinion on whether a crime has been committed isn't as relevant as the criminal justice system's opinion.

Since I don't see any crime was committed, maybe I kind of have myopic vision on this and don't understand where anyone else sees a crime. It's not a crime to disobey a dispatcher's suggestion. It's not a crime to follow someone after you've called LE. It's not a crime to shoot to kill if you're being beaten up. I don't see any crimes here.

Well then why are the feds involved? It's a crime to haunt someone down b/c of their race and instigate them into a fight and then shoot and kill them under the auspices of self defense. That is a violation of his civil rights. < mod snip >

kimpage
04-05-2012, 12:42 AM
Didn't we hear Zimmerman's attorney come out the day after that interview and state that the Zimmerman brothers are estranged and it was like a year since the last time they had spoken? I'm pretty I didn't dream that.



~jmo~
I heard that too..But i do not know if it has been verified or not...... Would like the answer to that myself...IMHO

uvamerica
04-05-2012, 12:44 AM
Has it been determined that the brother has actually seen GZ since the alleged nose break occurred, or is this what he was told?

The brother himself said on CNN that he had NOT seen GZ, and was going by what he heard from GZ
Also, the 2 friends who were defending George in the media had not seen George's wounds either.


:moo:

rbrnmw2
04-05-2012, 12:45 AM
Thanks so much!! This article clears up the misconception that Zimmerman is living in seclusion because the Black Panthers put a bounty on his head because according to his "good buddy" Joe Oliver, he moved out of his apartment and went into seclusion the day after Trayvon's murder.



~jmo~

Yep it wasn't even heavily reported at that point IMO

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 12:45 AM
My sources do not conflict themselves and in fact if you will read the links that were posted, you would see that many states do not allow them to be presented in court period; however, there are several states that do. In the state of Florida, it plainly states if both sides agree they can be used. If one party objects, then it would not be allowed in. Looks like a pretty simple thing to understand if you ask me. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you did your own research on the admissibility of polygraphs in courts and then you can see for yourself exactly what it is you need to know.



~jmo~
First, yes, they are conflicting. Your second source states that they are not admissible in Florida courts. This is summarily untrue. Per State v. Thompkins, 891 So. 2d 1151, the court may allow polygraph evidence based on the outcome of a Frye hearing and if both parties agree to its use. This is reflected in at least one of your other sources, meaning that there is an overt contradiction.

Secondly, you are the one that claimed polygraph tests are not admissible in court, not me:

He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~
(Emphasis mine)

The onus was on you to prove this assertion, since you stated it. I am quite aware of polygraph law, thank you. I didn't know if you had some other source that contradicted my knowledge of the subject. Polygraph evidence is admissible in the State of Florida under certain circumstances. This is reflected in State v. Thompkins, and Davis v. State. Various federal courts have left it up to the states to decide, and the Supreme Court has not prohibited polygraph evidence from being submitted.

Should the case be tried federally, polygraph evidence would be admissible pending the trial judge's decision. Should the case be tried in Florida, polygraph evidence would be admissible under certain conditions. It's never just plain not allowed.

:)

Velouria
04-05-2012, 12:45 AM
My cable and internet have been out for 2 days it's driving my mad can you give me an abridged recap? Preez:D

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

Well, here's a sample: Mr. Sonner says that his client has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and that we should all wait for the facts to come out, because there's not a single thing in the media that is admissible in court (??!!). Then he said that the only facts we know are that GZ was attacked by TM, and suffered a broken nose and had his head bashed. Piers called him on that and said "No, we do NOT know all that for a fact; that is your client's account". Sonner replied "That's what I'm saying, we don't know all the facts yet."

Confused? So is Mr. Sonner, apparently. :giggle:

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 12:47 AM
I don't see the word 'never' in the original response...

It was in my original question, since she asserted that polygraph evidence was not admissible in court. "Never" doesn't have to be explicitly stated for it to apply.

Allusonz
04-05-2012, 12:48 AM
Found this FWIW

In more Zimmerman news, Uhrig told WOFL that his client had passed a voice-stress analysis test when questioned by Sanford police.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/04/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-hires-casey-anthony-tv-analyst.html

Thank you greatly!!! I am very wary of the reporting and when it was brought up that the defense could of administered this I did have to wonder.

csziggy
04-05-2012, 12:49 AM
Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

How long would an evaluation take? According to the various sources, EMTs declared Trayvon at about 7:30, only 13 minutes after the first police officer arrived on the scene.

GZ arrived at the police station at 7:52 and it's a roughly 15 minute trip from the scene to the station. That leaves about 7 minutes for the SFD EMTs to evaluate GZ, cancel the second ambulance, clean up his wounds, have him sign a release, and clear him for transport to the police station.

Does that sound reasonable?

crocus
04-05-2012, 12:51 AM
I just saw the best case on the ID channel where a LTD was allowed in court. The cops thought they had their guy and gave him a LDT and told him he passed. He kept talking and they found more evidence and ended up charging him for the crime and went to court.

In court he told his lawyer he took a LDT and passed. The lawyer demanded the results be put into the record. LOL LOL the cops had lied to the guy, he failed it all. GUILTY!!:rocker::rocker:
Booyah! lol

Reader
04-05-2012, 12:51 AM
I really would like to see any PROVE of this...... Anything documented proved by medical examination........

Blessings

Micci

Somebody said above that GZ went for medical treatment for his 'head injury' but the doctor said it had already healed....wonder why he didn't get his 'broken nose' fixed then?

IMO

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 12:52 AM
Somebody said above that GZ went for medical treatment for his 'head injury' but the doctor said it had already healed....wonder why he didn't get his 'broken nose' fixed then?

IMO

I believe it was said that the doctor said he couldn't get stitches because too much time had elapsed. JMO

suzihawk
04-05-2012, 12:52 AM
So what was Trayvon doing that made Zimmerman call LE?


Walkin about.

Wearing a hoodie.

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 12:53 AM
First, yes, they are conflicting. Your second source states that they are not admissible in Florida courts. This is summarily untrue. Per State v. Thompkins, 891 So. 2d 1151, the court may allow polygraph evidence based on the outcome of a Frye hearing and if both parties agree to its use. This is reflected in at least one of your other sources, meaning that there is an overt contradiction.

Secondly, you are the one that claimed polygraph tests are not admissible in court, not me:

(Emphasis mine)

The onus was on you to prove this assertion, since you stated it. I am quite aware of polygraph law, thank you. I didn't know if you had some other source that contradicted my knowledge of the subject. Polygraph evidence is admissible in the State of Florida under certain circumstances. This is reflected in State v. Thompkins, and Davis v. State. Various federal courts have left it up to the states to decide, and the Supreme Court has not prohibited polygraph evidence from being submitted.

Should the case be tried federally, polygraph evidence would be admissible pending the trial judge's decision. Should the case be tried in Florida, polygraph evidence would be admissible under certain conditions. It's never just plain not allowed.

:)

My original post stated this.....

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


Thank you but I see no where in my original post that said a polygraph was NEVER admissible in court, secondly I prefaced my comment with "WOULD IMAGINE" which means that it was MY OPINION. WOULD NOT is a heck of a lot different than NEVER.



~jmo~

highflyer
04-05-2012, 12:55 AM
I believe it was said that the doctor said he couldn't get stitches because too much time had elapsed. JMO

And the broken nose?

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 01:00 AM
My original post stated this.....

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


Thank you but I see no where in my original post that said a polygraph was NEVER admissible in court, secondly I prefaced my comment with "WOULD IMAGINE" which means that it was MY OPINION. WOULD NOT is a heck of a lot different than NEVER.



~jmo~
I'm not going to debate syntax and the English language with you. This isn't the place for pedantry. You seemed to have reason to believe that polygraph evidence is not admissible in court. It is in Florida and in the federal system.

That's all there is to it, really.

JMO

suzihawk
04-05-2012, 01:01 AM
I did not see it. At least he did not bolt again apparently.

No, but he sure looked like he wanted to.

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 01:01 AM
And the broken nose?
Has it been said anywhere that he did not get it treated?

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 01:02 AM
And the broken nose?

Didn't we have a conversation about this last night and someone said that a doctor would tell you to wait several days before going and having your nose checked?


~jmo~

TonyGatto
04-05-2012, 01:04 AM
How long would an evaluation take? According to the various sources, EMTs declared Trayvon at about 7:30, only 13 minutes after the first police officer arrived on the scene.

GZ arrived at the police station at 7:52 and it's a roughly 15 minute trip from the scene to the station. That leaves about 7 minutes for the SFD EMTs to evaluate GZ, cancel the second ambulance, clean up his wounds, have him sign a release, and clear him for transport to the police station.

Does that sound reasonable?

It's reasonable and the timeline is one thing we have that we know is fact. Given the police report stating bleeding from the head and nose, and the enhance video showing some sort of wound, I think we can safely say GZ suffered minor injuries. The very short amount of time in which EMT's cleared him, and the absence of bandages, bolsters the case. This is consistent with a struggle. GZ is able to argue that he was beaten, but not to within an inch of his life. And he doesn't need to. However, none of this in anyway supports (or contradicts), his claim that he was the victim of an unprovoked attack by TM.

ecs5298
04-05-2012, 01:05 AM
How long would an evaluation take? According to the various sources, EMTs declared Trayvon at about 7:30, only 13 minutes after the first police officer arrived on the scene.

GZ arrived at the police station at 7:52 and it's a roughly 15 minute trip from the scene to the station. That leaves about 7 minutes for the SFD EMTs to evaluate GZ, cancel the second ambulance, clean up his wounds, have him sign a release, and clear him for transport to the police station.

Does that sound reasonable?

Don't know but it's not out of the question. How many EMS personnel were on scene. Did they actually work Trayvon or was he a DOS (dead on scene). Was there firefighters on scene that looked at GZ while the ambulance crew looked at TM? In itself, 7 minutes would be pushing it but it could be done.

RANCH
04-05-2012, 01:05 AM
How long would an evaluation take? According to the various sources, EMTs declared Trayvon at about 7:30, only 13 minutes after the first police officer arrived on the scene.

GZ arrived at the police station at 7:52 and it's a roughly 15 minute trip from the scene to the station. That leaves about 7 minutes for the SFD EMTs to evaluate GZ, cancel the second ambulance, clean up his wounds, have him sign a release, and clear him for transport to the police station.

Does that sound reasonable?
Do we know what time the EMT's arrived and how many were there?

crocus
04-05-2012, 01:05 AM
whew.


Time to take a step back and smell the Spring......
http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/springsmile.gif (http://www.millan.net)

Dr.Fessel
04-05-2012, 01:06 AM
Watch George be all bandaged up for his mugshot like a mummy. LOL LOL

Helplessly Hoping
04-05-2012, 01:08 AM
Don't know but it's not out of the question. How many EMS personnel were on scene. Did they actually work Trayvon or was he a DOS (dead on scene). Was there firefighters on scene that looked at GZ while the ambulance crew looked at TM? In itself, 7 minutes would be pushing it but it could be done.


Thank you for your insights. Given that this was a homicide and hopefully there was forensic testing--does that change any of your protocol?

HiHater
04-05-2012, 01:08 AM
Has it been determined that the brother has actually seen GZ since the alleged nose break occurred, or is this what he was told?

Really not sure...sorry, will look for a link later!

highflyer
04-05-2012, 01:08 AM
Didn't we have a conversation about this last night and someone said that a doctor would tell you to wait several days before going and having your nose checked?


~jmo~

You'd think that had Zimmerman gone for medical attention on a head injury he would have had a possible broken nose examined too.

vlpate
04-05-2012, 01:09 AM
Now the word sounds like "cold" to the same "expert" that said he was sure it sounded like .... well, not "cold" (Wolf Blitzer). I'm cracking up - now I have no doubt the FBI has completed their test and CNN/ABC has been tipped off - they're backing off and blaming "wind noise" for the difference. JMO

This is what Taffe said he heard as well.

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 01:09 AM
Don't know but it's not out of the question. How many EMS personnel were on scene. Did they actually work Trayvon or was he a DOS (dead on scene). Was there firefighters on scene that looked at GZ while the ambulance crew looked at TM? In itself, 7 minutes would be pushing it but it could be done.
Responding officers started chest compressions and rescue breathing. When medics arrived, they apparently attempted resuscitation themselves and then made the pronunciation at 1930. I don't believe there's not much of a timeline other than that.

TonyGatto
04-05-2012, 01:10 AM
Has it been said anywhere that he did not get it treated?

No. He may have gotten it treated during the visit to the hospital his representatives say occurred the next day. We don't know that the visit to the hospital actually occurred, and if it did occur we don't know whether the diagnosis was a broken nose.

csziggy
04-05-2012, 01:10 AM
Don't know but it's not out of the question. How many EMS personnel were on scene. Did they actually work Trayvon or was he a DOS (dead on scene). Was there firefighters on scene that looked at GZ while the ambulance crew looked at TM? In itself, 7 minutes would be pushing it but it could be done.
From the police reports, between one and three police officers gave Travyon CPR. We do not have the SFD EMT reports and don't know exactly when they arrived. Only one ambulance was on the scene, a second one was canceled. We don't at this point know what other personnel were on the scene - other SFD, police officers, etc.

Trayvon from all we know was dead at scene.

GZ was treated while sitting in the back of a police car, not in the ambulance.

uvamerica
04-05-2012, 01:12 AM
Has it been said anywhere that he did not get it treated?

There is no documentation to support GZ had a broken nose that I've seen. we only have what GZ and his supporters have claimed.

:moo:

rotterdam
04-05-2012, 01:12 AM
Pierce Morgan and his "British" sensibilities seems to find this ALL very disturbing (Zimmerman not being arrested)
Funny I wrote that before he even mentioned they wouldn't do things this way in Britain!!
Ha!

And you can add the rest of the civilized world to that.
It is just incredible to me that a private person can follow/harass and shoot/kill an unarmed minor for no apparent reason except on some unfounded suspicion bordering paranoia and not be arrested for that.
And that a private person in FL is allowed to carry a CONCEALED weapon when there is nothing in their background/employment to justify that.
It is so absurd to me that folks are even trying to justify the killing of Trayvon by GZ. To me , it is such a violation of human rights/sanctity of life and a situation that I would have expected in the 19th century or in a country like Somalia.
I do so hope that it will become a civil rights issue, which I suspect will also involve the Sanford officials. It is the only way, we will see some justice since FL has written humane justice out of their laws.
JMO.

RANCH
04-05-2012, 01:13 AM
Now the word sounds like "cold" to the same "expert" that said he was sure it sounded like .... well, not "cold" (Wolf Blitzer). I'm cracking up - now I have no doubt the FBI has completed their test and CNN/ABC has been tipped off - they're backing off and blaming "wind noise" for the difference. JMO

This is what Taffe said he heard as well.

Where is this coming from? Something your watching on TV?

HiHater
04-05-2012, 01:13 AM
First, yes, they are conflicting. Your second source states that they are not admissible in Florida courts. This is summarily untrue. Per State v. Thompkins, 891 So. 2d 1151, the court may allow polygraph evidence based on the outcome of a Frye hearing and if both parties agree to its use. This is reflected in at least one of your other sources, meaning that there is an overt contradiction.

Secondly, you are the one that claimed polygraph tests are not admissible in court, not me:

(Emphasis mine)

The onus was on you to prove this assertion, since you stated it. I am quite aware of polygraph law, thank you. I didn't know if you had some other source that contradicted my knowledge of the subject. Polygraph evidence is admissible in the State of Florida under certain circumstances. This is reflected in State v. Thompkins, and Davis v. State. Various federal courts have left it up to the states to decide, and the Supreme Court has not prohibited polygraph evidence from being submitted.

Should the case be tried federally, polygraph evidence would be admissible pending the trial judge's decision. Should the case be tried in Florida, polygraph evidence would be admissible under certain conditions. It's never just plain not allowed.

:)


The poster never used the word never. She specifically said "I would imagine"...So there is nothing to prove, and if you had knowledge of the subject, then it would just be easier to enlighten us all instead of arguing about semantics. :twocents::moo:

legalmania
04-05-2012, 01:14 AM
I believe it was said that the doctor said he couldn't get stitches because too much time had elapsed. JMO

I've waited up to 8 hrs in the emergency room to get stitches. According to the police report LE and the EMTs got there pretty quickly. I read Zimmerman was treated with a first aid kit in the back of the police car. If it was that bad the police would have either taken him to the hospital or the EMTs would have taken him right?

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:14 AM
Watching AC360 one of the lawyers said a Voice Stress test is not admissable and not really reliable...Also said his lawyer opened a can of worms heshouldnt have by claiming GZ took the test...They also said the FBI would not be involved if there was no racial slur...No link it was just on so wil say IMHO JMHO and all that :moo: :moo: :moo:

Dr.Fessel
04-05-2012, 01:15 AM
Now the word sounds like "cold" to the same "expert" that said he was sure it sounded like .... well, not "cold" (Wolf Blitzer). I'm cracking up - now I have no doubt the FBI has completed their test and CNN/ABC has been tipped off - they're backing off and blaming "wind noise" for the difference. JMO

This is what Taffe said he heard as well. LOL LOL yeah it was really cold, 60 degrees and he had that big old coat on.

TonyGatto
04-05-2012, 01:15 AM
I'm not going to debate syntax and the English language with you. This isn't the place for pedantry. You seemed to have reason to believe that polygraph evidence is not admissible in court. It is in Florida and in the federal system.

That's all there is to it, really.

JMO

While you are right when you say it is admissible in Florida, that statement leaves the impression that a prosecutor or a defense attorney can enter it into evidence if they so choose. You are leaving out the part that it must be by stipulation -- an agreement by the two parties -- and be approved by the judge.

suzihawk
04-05-2012, 01:15 AM
Has it been said anywhere that he did not get it treated?

His brother said it was still broken on Piers Morgan. But the way he attempted to twist a few other details, he could have been referring to a broken nose he got when he was a child or something.

MOO

HiHater
04-05-2012, 01:17 AM
Watching AC360 one of the lawyers said a Voice Stress test is not admissable and not really reliable...Also said his lawyer opened a can of worms heshouldnt have by claiming GZ took the test...They also said the FBI would not be involved if there was no racial slur...No link it was just on so wil say IMHO JMHO and all that :moo: :moo: :moo:

IMO, the fact that the FBI has boots on the ground means that there is something there. They are not just "overseeing" an investigation, they are conducting their own.

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 01:18 AM
The poster never used the word never. She specifically said "I would imagine"...So there is nothing to prove, and if you had knowledge of the subject, then it would just be easier to enlighten us all instead of arguing about semantics. :twocents::moo:
And I did not know if there was reason she said that, so I asked for a citation. When I got a wall of text back with conflicting statements, I felt it should be addressed. A simple "That's just how I understood it to be" would have sufficed, and would have prompted me to make a more universal statement as you suggested. I'm also not the one arguing about semantics. :)

highflyer
04-05-2012, 01:18 AM
Now the word sounds like "cold" to the same "expert" that said he was sure it sounded like .... well, not "cold" (Wolf Blitzer). I'm cracking up - now I have no doubt the FBI has completed their test and CNN/ABC has been tipped off - they're backing off and blaming "wind noise" for the difference. JMO

This is what Taffe said he heard as well.

Link please?

m00c0w
04-05-2012, 01:20 AM
While you are right when you say it is admissible in Florida, that statement leaves the impression that a prosecutor or a defense attorney can enter it into evidence if they so choose. You are leaving out the part that it must be by stipulation -- an agreement by the two parties -- and be approved by the judge.

Which I stated in my prior post, but thank you for making that addendum in case anyone got confused. :)

HiHater
04-05-2012, 01:21 AM
And I did not know if there was reason she said that, so I asked for a citation. When I got a wall of text back with conflicting statements, I felt it should be addressed. A simple "That's just how I understood it to be" would have sufficed, and would have prompted me to make a more universal statement as you suggested. I'm also not the one arguing about semantics. :)

Understood. ;)

Helplessly Hoping
04-05-2012, 01:22 AM
There is no documentation to support GZ had a broken nose that I've seen. we only have what GZ and his supporters have claimed.

:moo:

And how many who have spoken about his condition have not even SEEN him? It is these little pieces that really makes me question the whole of what we've been told. MOO :moo:

krkrjx
04-05-2012, 01:22 AM
And you can add the rest of the civilized world to that.
It is just incredible to me that a private person can follow/harass and shoot/kill an unarmed minor for no apparent reason except on some unfounded suspicion bordering paranoia and not be arrested for that.
And that a private person in FL is allowed to carry a CONCEALED weapon when there is nothing in their background/employment to justify that.
It is so absurd to me that folks are even trying to justify the killing of Trayvon by GZ. To me , it is such a violation of human rights/sanctity of life and a situation that I would have expected in the 19th century or in a country like Somalia.
I do so hope that it will become a civil rights issue, which I suspect will also involve the Sanford officials. It is the only way, we will see some justice since FL has written humane justice out of their laws.
JMO.

My sentiments exactly!

rotterdam
04-05-2012, 01:24 AM
My original post stated this.....

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


Thank you but I see no where in my original post that said a polygraph was NEVER admissible in court, secondly I prefaced my comment with "WOULD IMAGINE" which means that it was MY OPINION. WOULD NOT is a heck of a lot different than NEVER.



~jmo~

I thought I heard Piers say that according to his expert, a VST is just as reliable as flipping a coin.

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:25 AM
IMO, the fact that the FBI has boots on the ground means that there is something there. They are not just "overseeing" an investigation, they are conducting their own.
I agree!!! And it is telling that the voice stress test in nor reliable at all!!!!!!!!!!! His camp needs to zip it. IMHO JMHO and all that..

RANCH
04-05-2012, 01:25 AM
Watching AC360 one of the lawyers said a Voice Stress test is not admissable and not really reliable...Also said his lawyer opened a can of worms heshouldnt have by claiming GZ took the test...They also said the FBI would not be involved if there was no racial slur...No link it was just on so wil say IMHO JMHO and all that :moo: :moo: :moo:

BBM
Did he say what kind of worms (problems) would be opened by claiming that GZ took this voice stress test?

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:27 AM
Link please?
He never said cold.....Just mentioned Taaffe said it!!! And when they played it I Heard *oon...IMHO

ecs5298
04-05-2012, 01:27 AM
Thank you for your insights. Given that this was a homicide and hopefully there was forensic testing--does that change any of your protocol?


Medically....no. However, we try and preserve as much of the crime scene as possible. The real question is how dead was TM and what are the local protocols re: traumatic cardiac arrest. In our system we don't have to work blunt trauma cardiac arrests. We still have to work penetrating trauma such as GSW's or stab wounds unless there are obvious signs of death such as rigor/livor mortis, decapitation, out pouring of cranial contents, etc. The PD starting CPR doesn't really mean much. They have no way of assessing his heart rhythm or the extent of his injuries. If EMS got there and he was pulseless and apniec (not breathing) and showed asystole (flat line) on the cardiac monitor, they may not have had to work him. To assess GZ and sign him off may have taken a couple of minutes, especially if the cops helped him clean up to get a better look at his wounds. With the limited amount of info we have at this time, that's the best I can do without pure speculation.

CHICANA
04-05-2012, 01:29 AM
Has it been said anywhere that he did not get it treated?

The hospital didn't do anything for my husbands broken nose. If you look closely you can tell it's crooked.

uvamerica
04-05-2012, 01:30 AM
"It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said."


"a tear on his cheek"

this breaks my heart, Trayvon must have been so frightened, confused and in pain. :maddening:

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&_intl=us&_lang=en-us&_al=off

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:31 AM
BBM
Did he say what kind of worms (problems) would be opened by claiming that GZ took this voice stress test?
No i wish he did.... Makes me curious about it..IMHO JMHO and all that

Helplessly Hoping
04-05-2012, 01:35 AM
[/B]


Medically....no. However, we try and preserve as much of the crime scene as possible. The real question is how dead was TM and what are the local protocols re: traumatic cardiac arrest. In our system we don't have to work blunt trauma cardiac arrests. We still have to work penetrating trauma such as GSW's or stab wounds unless there are obvious signs of death such as rigor/livor mortis, decapitation, out pouring of cranial contents, etc. The PD starting CPR doesn't really mean much. They have no way of assessing his heart rhythm or the extent of his injuries. If EMS got there and he was pulseless and apniec (not breathing) and showed asystole (flat line) on the cardiac monitor, they may not have had to work him. To assess GZ and sign him off may have taken a couple of minutes, especially if the cops helped him clean up to get a better look at his wounds. With the limited amount of info we have at this time, that's the best I can do without pure speculation.

Great info and really appreciated. I can imagine working quickly in a triage situation but was a really quick turnaround getting GZ from site to police station. I would have thought it would take longer so your posts are helpful.

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:35 AM
"It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said."


"a tear on his cheek"

this breaks my heart, Trayvon must have been so frightened, confused and in pain. :maddening:

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&_intl=us&_lang=en-us&_al=off
Oh now that really makes me sad and so darn angry what a horrible thing for a dad to find out that way..I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!! IMHO JMHO and all that

rotterdam
04-05-2012, 01:36 AM
Watching AC360 one of the lawyers said a Voice Stress test is not admissable and not really reliable...Also said his lawyer opened a can of worms heshouldnt have by claiming GZ took the test...They also said the FBI would not be involved if there was no racial slur...No link it was just on so wil say IMHO JMHO and all that :moo: :moo: :moo:

I disagree with that lawyer. The civil rights Act is very encompassing and has much more than just racial slurs/hate crimes. The Feds can find many other reasons to step in, including biased investigation by L.E. and by other Sanford officials.
All IMO.

TonyGatto
04-05-2012, 01:38 AM
Three very different narratives about what happened that night have been told by GZ surrogates as detailed in the story linked below. Of course, in the end, they won't matter much. What WILL matter is whether GZ is telling one solid story to investigators or are they picking-up inconsistencies.

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman's evolving narrative

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-evolving-story.php

RANCH
04-05-2012, 01:38 AM
No i wish he did.... Makes me curious about it..IMHO JMHO and all that

Your kidding me. So they said it was inadmissible and would open a can of worms and nothing else? Well that's pretty lame.

Cher352
04-05-2012, 01:38 AM
There is no documentation to support GZ had a broken nose that I've seen. we only have what GZ and his supporters have claimed.

:moo:

I did watch a live press conference on one Orlando's local station WFTV shortly after this happened. In that press conf the PD did say that they have the hospital report from where GZ visits the day after the shooting. I doubt that his family would being saying that his nose was broke if it wasn't backed up on that report.

Adrienne37
04-05-2012, 01:39 AM
"It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said."


"a tear on his cheek"

this breaks my heart, Trayvon must have been so frightened, confused and in pain. :maddening:

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&_intl=us&_lang=en-us&_al=off

It breaks my heart too and I can't wait until the day that I log on and see Zimmerman is behind bars where he belongs. What a cold and heartless way to tell a parent that their child is dead. It's sickening and disgusting. I can't imagine what Mr. Martin felt at that moment.


~jmo~

kimpage
04-05-2012, 01:40 AM
I disagree with that lawyer. The civil rights Act is very encompassing and has much more than just racial slurs/hate crimes. The Feds can find many other reasons to step in, including biased investigation by L.E. and by other Sanford officials.
All IMO.
I am Just repeating what i heard.He said without a slur there would only be state charges.......Sorry no link as i just watched it on AC360.. JMHO IMHO and all that

Cher352
04-05-2012, 01:42 AM
Anyone watch Hannity tonight? GZ's father and both his lawyers were on. It may repeat later for those on the west coast.

csziggy
04-05-2012, 01:44 AM
[/B]


Medically....no. However, we try and preserve as much of the crime scene as possible. The real question is how dead was TM and what are the local protocols re: traumatic cardiac arrest. In our system we don't have to work blunt trauma cardiac arrests. We still have to work penetrating trauma such as GSW's or stab wounds unless there are obvious signs of death such as rigor/livor mortis, decapitation, out pouring of cranial contents, etc. The PD starting CPR doesn't really mean much. They have no way of assessing his heart rhythm or the extent of his injuries. If EMS got there and he was pulseless and apniec (not breathing) and showed asystole (flat line) on the cardiac monitor, they may not have had to work him. To assess GZ and sign him off may have taken a couple of minutes, especially if the cops helped him clean up to get a better look at his wounds. With the limited amount of info we have at this time, that's the best I can do without pure speculation.

TM was shot at 7:16 and 44 seconds according to the recording of the 911 call that had both the screaming and the gunshot on it. The first police officers arrived on the scene at 7:17 according to their reports and pretty quickly began CPR. A third officer arrived on the scene and continued CPR.

The arrival time of the EMTs is unknown, but TM was pronounced at 7:30. After that is when they must have had time to deal with GZ in the back of the police car.

TonyGatto
04-05-2012, 01:45 AM
I am Just repeating what i heard.He said without a slur there would only be state charges.......Sorry no link as i just watched it on AC360.. JMHO IMHO and all that

It wasn't just some lawyer -- it was Jeffrey Toobin! Clearly the Feds are investigating and the civil rights act gives them great leeway -- but they still have to find some sort of wrongdoing with racial motive. It's been stated here that the fact that they are involved is because there was a racial slur uttered by GZ. Not necessarily true. That's what they're investigating.

uvamerica
04-05-2012, 01:46 AM
I did watch a live press conference on one Orlando's local station WFTV shortly after this happened. In that press conf the PD did say that they have the hospital report from where GZ visits the day after the shooting. I doubt that his family would being saying that his nose was broke if it wasn't backed up on that report.

I'll believe it when I see the reports :moo:

suzihawk
04-05-2012, 01:46 AM
I disagree with that lawyer. The civil rights Act is very encompassing and has much more than just racial slurs/hate crimes. The Feds can find many other reasons to step in, including biased investigation by L.E. and by other Sanford officials.
All IMO.

Actually, the guy on AC360 said it did involve other things besides the racial slur. But the main focus (of the discussion) was the racial slur.

MOO since I don't have a link.

vlpate
04-05-2012, 01:50 AM
Well, here's a sample: Mr. Sonner says that his client has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and that we should all wait for the facts to come out, because there's not a single thing in the media that is admissible in court (??!!). Then he said that the only facts we know are that GZ was attacked by TM, and suffered a broken nose and had his head bashed. Piers called him on that and said "No, we do NOT know all that for a fact; that is your client's account". Sonner replied "That's what I'm saying, we don't know all the facts yet."

Confused? So is Mr. Sonner, apparently. :giggle:

There were two attorneys there, the other one explained to PM that there was an eyewitness who saw Trayvon beating GZ - which is a fact, according to the other attorney - can't recall his name. I caught what you are saying - the time delay was making it confusing. JMO

crocus
04-05-2012, 01:50 AM
I'll believe it when I see the reports :moo:

Would report prove who inflicted harm? Just sayin'......

frenchvixen
04-05-2012, 01:52 AM
After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

OMG, that's funny. The real watchmen are coming to get him. I just thought about the attorneys on Piers tonight stating that it's not even a fat that TM went to the store.. and that maybe he was just walking around. Piers responded how would you know it's a fact Trayvon is dead so he can't state the facts. I can't believe that they are attacking something that has been documented. I'm sure there are cameras at the 711 but no one has really disputed this fact. But, his attorneys would rather dispute that instead of explain wht was GZ doing following TM?