17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #27

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cityslick said:
They didn't change the tape, they just cut a part out. That's way different than actually altering (photoshopping) an image. The comparison would be if they actually somehow changed the 911 tape to make GZ say something that was never said.

Even so, there were reprimands even for that.
Click to expand...

These are two different news agencies. IMO also, One got called out because the editing was obvious. The other one didn't because the public doesn't have any real proof of GZ'a injuries to call foul on that pic.
 
SuziQ said:
These are two different news agencies. IMO also, One got called out because the editing was obvious. The other one didn't because the public doesn't have any real proof of GZ'a injuries to call foul on that pic.
Click to expand...

I think if was an actual alteration, where someone painted red on his head or a bruise of some sort and then it turns out he never had any injury back there, the credibility of that news agency (ABC?) goes down the drain, forever. That's a lot of money at stake for someone to alter a photo so they can 'push' the story a certain way.

Why can't it just be acknowledged that he may have a bruise back there instead of conspiracy theorying that a major news organization doctored the image? Just because there may have been a fight and he got injured in a fight doesn't necessarily mean he was justified in shooting.
 
SuziQ said:
These are two different news agencies. IMO also, One got called out because the editing was obvious. The other one didn't because the public doesn't have any real proof of GZ'a injuries to call foul on that pic.
Click to expand...

Also, I'm pretty sure that the photo was presented as an "enhanced" image, whereas the 911 edit was presented as fact.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:
 
Dr.Fessel said:
Officer Smith never mentions in the report that Zimmerman told him he had a permit.
Click to expand...

It should have been in the report, but that does not mean he was not asked and in all likelyhood produced his permit.
 
cityslick said:
I think if was an actual alteration, where someone painted red on his head or a bruise of some sort and then it turns out he never had any injury back there, the credibility of that news agency (ABC?) goes down the drain, forever. That's a lot of money at stake for someone to alter a photo so they can 'push' the story a certain way.

Why can't it just be acknowledged that he may have a bruise back there instead of conspiracy theorying that a major news organization doctored the image? Just because there may have been a fight and he got injured in a fight doesn't necessarily mean he was justified in shooting.
Click to expand...

BBM

Why can't it be acknowledged that there's seriously something wrong with that picture?

Unless we should just ignore all of that or try to say that the police officer really looks like that?
 
Phoenixfla said:
Whom created these enhanced videos? Wasn't it the MSM?
Click to expand...
It began with this company: http://www.forensicprotection.com/Zimmerman.html

I cannot, of course, account for its veracity. I am quite certain though any defense attorney worth his salt will have an independent lab enhance images in preparation for trial as well as further documenting any sustained injuries.

If they (the defense) rely solely on this to prove Zimmerman's injuries I think it will be very telling. JMO
 
I won't be shocked to find that GZ had some injuries. That happens when someone instigates a confrontation and they get bested. ((shrugs)). What I don't believe is the severity of the injuries as family and friends of GZ claim.
 
gxm said:
Also, I'm pretty sure that the photo was presented as an "enhanced" image, whereas the 911 edit was presented as fact.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Click to expand...

And who can dispute that "enhanced" image? No one knows the real extent of GZ's injuries to say it's accurate or not. IMO, it was irresponsible to put that picture out there.
 
Phoenixfla said:
Not sure what your getting at. Do you mean he know Zimmerman before this night and that he already new Zimmerman had a carry permit?
Click to expand...

I am thinking that is the case. I am just trying to put some thoughts together.
 
annalia said:
BBM

Why can't it be acknowledged that there's seriously something wrong with that picture?

Unless we're going to ignore all of that or try to say that the police officer really looks like that?
Click to expand...

The photo is enhanced but I'm leaning to there at least being a mark or bruise of some sort back there because a) it shows in the enhanced photo and b) the officers attention was drawn to the back of his head in the beginning of the video.

How do red streaks suddenly appear out of nowhere and only on one side and at a specific spot of his head? It should be all over his head if it's just a question of color saturation.
 
Phoenixfla said:
It should have been in the report, but that does not mean he was not asked and in all likelyhood produced his permit.
Click to expand...

Exactly~ I think most people that have CW permits carry the permit in their billfold.
 
You can't be arrested for a concealed firearm if you have a permit.

Makes no sense.

Whether GZ told LE about that night or they looked into it, it does not matter.

He had a permit. He broke no laws by carrying a gun.
 
cityslick said:
Officer smith didn't mention a lot of things in his report it seems. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
I think Officer Smith cherry picked things he put in that report to make Zimmerman look innocent. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 1,429 (members: 82, guests: 1,347)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
1,347
Total visitors
1,429
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,790
Messages
17,958,901
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top