George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

[chefmom]

And suppose TM HAD been up to no good? Suppose you lived i The Retreat, and GZ stayed in his car, and that "*advertiser censored**hole" got away. came to your apartment and raped you. Would you then still be saying he should have remained in his car? GZ presented NO evidence of being a danger to TM. He was FOLLOWING him. TM did NOT react like someone who was in fear of a crime. GZ DID act that way, he called the cops. TM called his GIRLFRIEND, chatted with her, bopping along like nothing was wrong.

Now, simple question, you have a cell phone, you feel like your life is in danger, who do you call, the police or your significant other?

This post asks for all of us to go on complete and total assumption, and you know what they say about that. First, we must ASSUME that TM was up to no good. There is absolutely no evidence that he was doing anything other than walking home from the store. Next, we must imagine ourselves in a horrendous situation in order to try and imagine why GZ could be in the right in this situation. Then, again we must ASSUME that TM "did NOT react like someone who was in fear of a crime." There is simply no way to know that. GZ may have called the cops, but he certainly didn't sound fearful in the 911 calls. He sounded pizzed about the a$$holes getting away. And, as far as TM chatting and bopping like nothing was wrong, well, nothing should have been wrong. He was walking back to his dad's girlfriend's home where he was staying. This case is a tragedy because GZ was overzealous and ASSUMED TM was up to no good. Now TM is dead. I, for one, will not do too much assuming. I will work with facts only. JMO

 

[Elley Mae]

Was there any mention of "blow back" blood spatter on GZ?

If GZ fired his gun during a struggle while on the ground with TM on top of him, then TM's blood should be on him somewhere. On his face, hands and clothes. No gun powder residue on GZ or TM from firing a gun from close range while on his back on the ground?

That would tell about how close he was when he fired his gun. If there was an exit wound to TM's back was the bullet recovered at the scene?


The blood patterns on back of his head is still just weird to me. The blood just stops flowing? In two different directions around the same time? Fighting for your life and no blood is smeared on your head or clothes while your moving around trying to get a man off of you. None of your blood on a boys hand"s that you claim was banging your head against a sidewalk?

Why would you let a man, whose said his head was pounded on a sidewalk several times, and those injuries might need stitches, go without transporting him to the ER so they could check to see how severe his wounds were and if he had a head concussion?

Why would you not want to see how badly hurt you were when you were in a fight for you life? Blood flowing from the back of your head, blood flowing down your throat and you say your OK.

As far as "blow back" if TM had a sweat shirt that was zipped up or did not have a zipper the "blow back" would be inside the shirt,no?

 

[Donjeta]

And suppose TM HAD been up to no good? Suppose you lived i The Retreat, and GZ stayed in his car, and that "*advertiser censored**hole" got away. came to your apartment and raped you. Would you then still be saying he should have remained in his car? GZ presented NO evidence of being a danger to TM. He was FOLLOWING him. TM did NOT react like someone who was in fear of a crime. GZ DID act that way, he called the cops. TM called his GIRLFRIEND, chatted with her, bopping along like nothing was wrong.

Now, simple question, you have a cell phone, you feel like your life is in danger, who do you call, the police or your significant other?

Under this logic it totally makes sense to shoot everybody I see because there is no way for me to know that they're not planning to enter my apartment and rape me. I could suppose that everybody is an *advertiser censored***** without any evidence.

Lots of people who follow strangers turn out to be a danger to them.

 

[vlpate]

That is good to know. So the next time I see someone with a weapon I should fear for my life if I accidently tick them off. lol

You wouldn't know if they have a concealed weapon, so I'm not sure what is meant by "seeing someone with a weapon". If they are pulling a gun on you, then heck yeah, I think that goes without saying you should probably not tick them off, lol. My post was more just information about hollow-point bullets.

I think what we will find from this case is that both GZ and TM felt their life was threatened and only GZ had a gun so that means he wins. jmo

Agreed.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

But they are. You can see some of the fear revealed in their postings. Everytime you put that gun on you are thinking about the fact that someone may attack you or you would not reach for it.
The only time my husband ever took his gun was after he left the PD and he knew he had to go back into an area of the city to take a statement. He said some people would still remember him as a cop. He never put it on for any other reason than that.

Don't get me wrong there are some who were victims and do feel that fear and it may never go away. I just remember my husband telling me that if you carry a gun you have to remember that gun could be turned on you. Most people do not see an attack coming. Anyone meaning to do you harm would not walk away without taking that gun if it's there for the taking.

It's sad to think that people feel they have to carry a gun but that is their choice. I believe GZ should have never been permitted to carry a gun because I don't think he would have gotten out of that truck had he not had one on him. jmo

BBM - No more than everytime I put a seatbelt on I'm thinking I may get into a horrible wreck.
I don't live in constant fear of head on collisions, but I click my seatbelt everytmie I enter a vehicle.

I am not terrified my house will surely burn down every time I change the batteries in my smoke alarms.

My daughter is not in constant fear that a pitch may hit her in the head each time she puts on her batting helmet.

IMO when you carry a gun, it's a safety measure. Much like the ones I mentioned above.
It does not mean you live in constant fear.
It means you are a realist who knows bad things happen and you would rather be safe than sorry (dead).

I don't feel anybody thinks they HAVE to carry a gun. I think they feel they have the RIGHT to carry one for protection.

I don't think you can fairly say that they are living in constant fear.

 

[stilettos]

BBM - No more than everytime I put a seatbelt on I'm thinking I may get into a horrible wreck.
I don't live in constant fear of head on collisions, but I click my seatbelt everytmie I enter a vehicle.

I am not terrified my house will surely burn down every time I change the batteries in my smoke alarms.

My daughter is not in constant fear that a pitch may hit her in the head each time she puts on her batting helmet.

IMO when you carry a gun, it's a safety measure. Much like the ones I mentioned above.
It does not mean you live in constant fear.
It means you are a realist who knows bad things happen and you would rather be safe than sorry (dead).

I don't feel anybody thinks they HAVE to carry a gun. I think they feel they have the RIGHT to carry one for protection.

I don't think you can fairly say that they are living in constant fear.

We have weapons and believe in the right to bear arms. CCP's and everything. I would NEVER take a weapon out of a car to FOLLOW someone! I would never load my weapon with killer bullets. My weapon is for protection and some for hunting. Protecting myself means having my weapon where I can get to it IF I need it after retreating to a place of safety. It does NOT mean you have the right to pick it up and go running after someone because of the way they look and shoot them dead. If GZ had remained in his truck and on the phone with LE, TM would be alive. He never should have had a weapon. I don't think GZ lived in fear...I think he was looking for an opportunity to use those killer bullets.

 

[LambChop]

See, you have equated "threatened" to "ticked off', which is not true, nor the same thing. Have GZ shot TM when he "ticked" him off, he would have done so right after he left the vehicle, and not waited until TM attacked him.

Why would GZ be ticked off because TM was headed away from him? What was TM doing at that time that would tick GZ off?

The reason you have to apply for a gun license is so that people who have a tendency towards violence can not get a CWP. I also feel, and it will probably be proven, GZ never should have been able to carry a weapon. NWP rules specifically say no guns. LE directed him not to follow but he continued anyway. He never informed LE he had a gun. These are all signs of irreponsible behavior.

Now as someone who has a CWP and carries their gun with them if there was a problem where you (the gun carrier) had to call 911 for an LE response would you notify the dispatcher FYI that you had a weapon on you? This is just a general question not directed at anyone in particular. jmo

 

[Kimberlyd125]

We have weapons and believe in the right to bear arms. CCP's and everything. I would NEVER take a weapon out of a car to FOLLOW someone! I would never load my weapon with killer bullets. My weapon is for protection and some for hunting. Protecting myself means having my weapon where I can get to it IF I need it after retreating to a place of safety. It does NOT mean you have the right to pick it up and go running after someone because of the way they look and shoot them dead. If GZ had remained in his truck and on the phone with LE, TM would be alive. He never should have had a weapon. I don't think GZ lived in fear...I think he was looking for an opportunity to use those killer bullets.

I was responding to a poster here, who believes that people who carry live in constant fear.

My post was a general post. It had nothing to do with the events of the night of the shooting.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

And suppose TM HAD been up to no good? Suppose you lived i The Retreat, and GZ stayed in his car, and that "*advertiser censored**hole" got away. came to your apartment and raped you. Would you then still be saying he should have remained in his car? GZ presented NO evidence of being a danger to TM. He was FOLLOWING him. TM did NOT react like someone who was in fear of a crime. GZ DID act that way, he called the cops. TM called his GIRLFRIEND, chatted with her, bopping along like nothing was wrong.

Now, simple question, you have a cell phone, you feel like your life is in danger, who do you call, the police or your significant other?

Respectfully, supposition and actuality are two different things. (I know that you know that as you seem to be as tarp as a shack as I am, LOL!)

My point is that IMO, GZ's 911 call indicates that he was doing some 'supposing' and it hasn't worked out so well for him thus far. GZ did call 911 but by leaving his vehicle, and leaving his keys inside, and following Trayvon does not portray a person in fear of bodily harm.

WRT TM being on the phone with his GF, I talk and walk alot!:woohoo:

MOO

wm

 

[LambChop]

BBM - No more than everytime I put a seatbelt on I'm thinking I may get into a horrible wreck.
I don't live in constant fear of head on collisions, but I click my seatbelt everytmie I enter a vehicle.

I am not terrified my house will surely burn down every time I change the batteries in my smoke alarms.

My daughter is not in constant fear that a pitch may hit her in the head each time she puts on her batting helmet.

IMO when you carry a gun, it's a safety measure. Much like the ones I mentioned above.
It does not mean you live in constant fear.
It means you are a realist who knows bad things happen and you would rather be safe than sorry (dead).

I don't feel anybody thinks they HAVE to carry a gun. I think they feel they have the RIGHT to carry one for protection.

I don't think you can fairly say that they are living in constant fear.

How do you feel when you leave the gun at home????

 

[LambChop]

You wouldn't know if they have a concealed weapon, so I'm not sure what is meant by "seeing someone with a weapon". If they are pulling a gun on you, then heck yeah, I think that goes without saying you should probably not tick them off, lol. My post was more just information about hollow-point bullets.



Agreed.

Ofcourse you can tell when someone has a weapon. Not so much in the winter with jackets but in the summer it's quite obvious. I don't think that bulge is a cell phone. lol I know my husband had a small gun he said wouldn't kill a flea but I could tell when he had it on. The larger one was even easier to detect. Not everyone does a good job of concealing them either. Most people who carry are clearly no threat and I have not felt threatened. It's just when we all hear of someone shooting a person who we find out later was doing nothing more than walking home that makes you realize it could have been you. jmo

 

[Karmady]

Ofcourse you can tell when someone has a weapon. Not so much in the winter with jackets but in the summer it's quite obvious. I don't think that bulge is a cell phone. lol I know my husband had a small gun he said wouldn't kill a flea but I could tell when he had it on. The larger one was even easier to detect. Not everyone does a good job of concealing them either. Most people who carry are clearly no threat and I have not felt threatened. It's just when we all hear of someone shooting a person who we find out later was doing nothing more than walking home that makes you realize it could have been you. jmo

We hear all day, every day, of innocent people going about their business being shot and killed. The vast, vast, majority of them are killed by criminals who know for a fact that their victims are just innocently going about their business. This case is a aberration, imo, and it certainly doesn't change my pov one bit about who the criminals generally are -- and it's not the ones with the CC permits. jmo

 

[Phoenixfla]

BBM - No more than everytime I put a seatbelt on I'm thinking I may get into a horrible wreck.
I don't live in constant fear of head on collisions, but I click my seatbelt everytmie I enter a vehicle.

I am not terrified my house will surely burn down every time I change the batteries in my smoke alarms.

My daughter is not in constant fear that a pitch may hit her in the head each time she puts on her batting helmet.

IMO when you carry a gun, it's a safety measure. Much like the ones I mentioned above.
It does not mean you live in constant fear.
It means you are a realist who knows bad things happen and you would rather be safe than sorry (dead).

I don't feel anybody thinks they HAVE to carry a gun. I think they feel they have the RIGHT to carry one for protection.

I don't think you can fairly say that they are living in constant fear.

I agree. It would be the same as saying anyone who carries mace or pepper spray is in constant fear of being attacked.

 

[Phoenixfla]

We have weapons and believe in the right to bear arms. CCP's and everything. I would NEVER take a weapon out of a car to FOLLOW someone! I would never load my weapon with killer bullets. My weapon is for protection and some for hunting. Protecting myself means having my weapon where I can get to it IF I need it after retreating to a place of safety. It does NOT mean you have the right to pick it up and go running after someone because of the way they look and shoot them dead. If GZ had remained in his truck and on the phone with LE, TM would be alive. He never should have had a weapon. I don't think GZ lived in fear...I think he was looking for an opportunity to use those killer bullets.

If you don't use "killer bullets" what kind do you use?

 

[stilettos]

If you don't use "killer bullets" what kind do you use?

We do not buy or load hollow points, nor do we personally know anyone who does. Yes, we are well able to shoot to kill, it would still be very difficult for me to do so....and I would never follow someone with my weapon because I did not like the way they look.

 

[LambChop]

We hear all day, every day, of innocent people going about their business being shot and killed. The vast, vast, majority of them are killed by criminals who know for a fact that their victims are just innocently going about their business. This case is a aberration, imo, and it certainly doesn't change my pov one bit about who the criminals generally are -- and it's not the ones with the CC permits. jmo

According to the law no criminal should have a gun permit. Also someone who has had to attend a class on anger management ordered by the court should have never been given a permit. It's a major red flag whether you end up getting charged or work out a plea deal. Having to attend a court ordered class should have to be reported. Maybe in the future they will require you do that. I see GZ slipping through that loop quite easily. He's already proven he's irresponsible.

 

[LambChop]

We do not buy or load hollow points, nor do we personally know anyone who does. Yes, we are well able to shoot to kill, it would still be very difficult for me to do so....and I would never follow someone with my weapon because I did not like the way they look.

And particularily in those shoes. Their a weapon in themselves. lol

 

[Phoenixfla]

We do not buy or load hollow points, nor do we personally know anyone who does. Yes, we are well able to shoot to kill, it would still be very difficult for me to do so....and I would never follow someone with my weapon because I did not like the way they look.

My point is that any bullets can kill. There are cases where FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullets pass through the intended target, and hit someone else. FMJ bullets are also more likely to ricochet. There are both pros and cons to using hollow point bullets.

 

[Phoenixfla]

According to the law no criminal should have a gun permit. Also someone who has had to attend a class on anger management ordered by the court should have never been given a permit. It's a major red flag whether you end up getting charged or work out a plea deal. Having to attend a court ordered class should have to be reported. Maybe in the future they will require you do that. I see GZ slipping through that loop quite easily. He's already proven he's irresponsible.

Well thats not entirely true. Here is what Florida says:

If you have been convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor crime of violence, you are not eligible for a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License unless a period of three years has elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled, or the record has been sealed or expunged. A copy of the document issued by the court or probation office evidencing completion of probation or other conditions must be submitted with your application.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/firearms/misdemeanor_crime_of_violence_not_including_domestic_violence.html

So it appears that GZ was well within his rights to hold a CCW permit.

We can debate is the law should be changed, but that is what the law is right now.

 

[Karmady]

According to the law no criminal should have a gun permit. Also someone who has had to attend a class on anger management ordered by the court should have never been given a permit. It's a major red flag whether you end up getting charged or work out a plea deal. Having to attend a court ordered class should have to be reported. Maybe in the future they will require you do that. I see GZ slipping through that loop quite easily. He's already proven he's irresponsible.

Most criminals do not have gun permits. They do, however, have guns. That is because they are criminals. Most of them also have criminal records well-beyond court ordered anger management classes. Which, imo, are merely profit centers and a very large joke. And, last but not least, you can't take away someone's constitutional rights if they have been diverted rather than convicted. A problem with our judicial system? Perhaps. Admittedly, the courts are "anger management" happy. And again, my strong personal belief is that is because those programs make money rather than spend it on trials in cases that aren't worth trying and/or which the State can't win. jmo