Replies

That Zimmerman was getting the s**t beat out of him is completely backed by witnesses, medical reports and physical evidence.

The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman's head nor any evidence of a "broken nose". Use your own eyes and look at the tape

These are called FACTS. Unlike your personal delusions and the voice soothsayers you're bring to the table.

Yes there are FACTS and you Zimmerman supporters are discounting what happened AFTER Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin, caught up with him and then confronted Martin

Remember: It was Zimmerman pursuing Martin after leaving his truck that led to the confrontation. Martin was continuing on his way home and Zimmerman made his decision to "pursue" and confront.

Under the rules of being a Neighborhood WATCH all Zimmerman legally could do was WATCH.

What is it about the definition of WATCH you Zimmerman supporters are confused about?

The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman's head nor any evidence of a "broken nose". Use your own eyes and look at the tape

Just in case you missed this earlier:

"I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them," the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.

He described where the injuries were.

"I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen," he said.

Yes there are FACTS and you Zimmerman supporters are discounting what happened AFTER Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin, caught up with him and then confronted Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The account of Martin's own girlfriend is that Martin initiated the interaction.

Remember: It was Zimmerman pursuing Martin after leaving his truck that led to the confrontation. Martin was continuing on his way home and Zimmerman made his decision to "pursue" and confront.

We know that he left his vehicle. We know that he lost sight of Martin while still on the phone with police. We know he tried to spot him again. We know that none of those actions are unreasonable, provocative or illegal. You are assuming other things which may or may not be true - but there is no known evidence that they are true.

Under the rules of being a Neighborhood WATCH all Zimmerman legally could do was WATCH.

There is no "Neighbor hood Watch law" that would prohibit Zimmerman from getting out of his car. But even if there were, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything but watch.

What is it about the definition of WATCH you Zimmerman supporters are confused about?

What is it about the definition of "evidence" that you are so confused about? Most of the people responding to you are not "supporters of Zimmerman," they are just trying to stick to known facts.

The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman’s head nor any evidence of a “broken nose”.

The raw footage (before ABC news got through with it) shows a gash in the back of Zimmerman’s head. How can you tell Zimmerman’s nose wasn’t broken? He had received medical attention.

“Yes there are FACTS and you Zimmerman supporters are discounting what happened AFTER Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin, caught up with him and then confronted Martin.”

Zimmerman lost Martin. How did he catch up with him and confront him?

“Under the rules of being a Neighborhood WATCH all Zimmerman legally could do was WATCH.”

Wrong. It is not illeggal for Zimmerman to leave his truck, and has already been pointed out to you he was well within the “rules” to maintain visual contact.

Again Rooivalk you fail on EVERY point. Your inability to distinguish between the law and your personal preference, and to use any kind of logic or reason make it perfectly clear that you are either a) too stupid to even discuss this or b) willfully misrepresenting in order to advance an agenda. In either case, I am done with you (except I will get in touch with you again to gloat and to remind you how incredibly stupid you are).

Your whole analysis depends on Zimmerman initiating a confrontation with Martin.

There is no evidence to confirm that premise.
You seem to be saying that keeping a suspicious person in sight equals initiating a confrontation.
That's a pretty far-fetched conclusion.

There is evidence that Z's NW training advices not to approach the suspicious person.

There is evidence from a previous call of Z's(9:27) to the police reporting a suspicious person

where Zimmerman says...”I don’t want to approach him personally”

...it shows in that instance Z wasn’t acting like some wild vigilante. He was doing what NW is suppose to do, watch and report. It is a data point at odds with the claims of some that he was a predatory hunter stalking M with the intent of confronting/executing/assassinating him.

Greetings Rooivalk:

Appreciate your skepticism, for FreeRepublic often suffers from chronic group think. Feel sad Trayvon's parents had to bury their child, and equally sad Mr. Zimmerman had to make a deadly force decision.

I'm mostly angered by media attention whores whipping up angry mobs reminiscent of a Klan lynch mob atmosphere. Worse are the race baiting politicians pimping the tragedy for fun and profit.

You've made a good point here: The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman's head

Wound appears as surface abrasion (road rash) but the lack of dressing atop the wound surprised me a bit. No sutures without a transport is logical. Head wound without a dressing an ice pack, later swelling is likely.

Freeper JoeProBono contributed this photo image. Known as a joker, I wouldn't rule a photoshop image. Asked for a confirmation of authenticity, but I haven't heard back.

Cheers,
OLA

The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman's head nor any evidence of a "broken nose". Use your own eyes and look at the tape

Okay, despite the witnesses, EMTs, police and physical evidence, you're still relying on the tape, WHICH NBC ADMITS SHOWS INJURIES.

So, you're on a mission to prove to everyone in this thread that you're an abject moron?