Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting


Locutus
#1
A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26 shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.

Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman's trial -- including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman's questioning by police.

Zimmerman's three-page medical report is included in those documents that the defense could use as evidence.



more


George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News
 
CDNBear
+4
#2  Top Rated Post
That's interesting.

Especially since NBC's report only said...

Quote:

Zimmerman was diagnosed with a minor black injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

NBC White supremacist Zimmerman only had minor black injury|NBC NEWS Online
Last edited by CDNBear; May 15th, 2012 at 07:14 PM..
 
SLM
+2
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

That's interesting.

Especially since NBC's report only said...

NBC White supremacist Zimmerman only had minor black injury|NBC NEWS Online

Well they had to sell the white supremacist headline. They couldn't very well let sympathy be generated for his injuries, could they?

NBC really sunk to the bottom of the barrel on this one.
 
CDNBear
+4
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Well they had to sell the white supremacist headline. They couldn't very well let sympathy be generated for his injuries, could they?

NBC really sunk to the bottom of the barrel on this one.

And yet Fox still gets the bulk of criticism.

Interesting...
 
Locutus
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

And yet Fox still gets the bulk of criticism.

Interesting...


http://forums.canadiancontent.net/us...a-shocker.html
 
SLM
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

And yet Fox still gets the bulk of criticism.

Interesting...

And who is it that does the criticizing? Folks that are capable of ignoring really big components in a story simply because it doesn't support their point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither a Fox fan nor a detractor. I figure most news outlets have a slant now a days, which is why I try to get my news from different sources, to get 'both sides of the story' such as it is. But that should be limited to political news only.

What NBC did was outright manipulation and lying. I'm not saying the guy should or shouldn't pay a price, that's for a court to decide, not me and certainly not NBC news.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#7
Nonsense, Zimmerman had a gun and even admitted to the 911 operator that
he was following the suspect. If I were walking down the street and a fool like
Zimmerman came after me with a gun or even if he was following me, I would
in fact turn to see what it was about, and if he decided that i was a criminal
especially if he armed I would fight. There is no point in running from a redneck
fool with a gun. years ago I was a night club manager and there were a few
times where people pulled knives or broken glasses etc. When it was evident
they were going to pursue the matter with what I considered a weapon, i did
defend myself. This is a lot different, no one had any proof the young man had
any malicious intent, all there was, was Zimmerman's hunch. He didn't follow
the law, he followed the kid. Why? because as he said to the 911 operator
"They always get away" The only malicious intent here was on the part of
Zimmerman.
 
CDNBear
+4
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Nonsense, Zimmerman had a gun and even admitted to the 911 operator that
he was following the suspect. If I were walking down the street and a fool like
Zimmerman came after me with a gun or even if he was following me, I would
in fact turn to see what it was about, and if he decided that i was a criminal
especially if he armed I would fight. There is no point in running from a redneck
fool with a gun. years ago I was a night club manager and there were a few
times where people pulled knives or broken glasses etc. When it was evident
they were going to pursue the matter with what I considered a weapon, i did
defend myself. This is a lot different, no one had any proof the young man had
any malicious intent, all there was, was Zimmerman's hunch. He didn't follow
the law, he followed the kid. Why? because as he said to the 911 operator
"They always get away" The only malicious intent here was on the part of
Zimmerman.

And you were a reporter?

Obviously for an outlet like NBC...
 
Colpy
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Nonsense, Zimmerman had a gun and even admitted to the 911 operator that
he was following the suspect. If I were walking down the street and a fool like
Zimmerman came after me with a gun or even if he was following me, I would
in fact turn to see what it was about, and if he decided that i was a criminal
especially if he armed I would fight. There is no point in running from a redneck
fool with a gun. years ago I was a night club manager and there were a few
times where people pulled knives or broken glasses etc. When it was evident
they were going to pursue the matter with what I considered a weapon, i did
defend myself. This is a lot different, no one had any proof the young man had
any malicious intent, all there was, was Zimmerman's hunch. He didn't follow
the law, he followed the kid. Why? because as he said to the 911 operator
"They always get away" The only malicious intent here was on the part of
Zimmerman.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Zimmerman was licensed to carry.

Zimmerman had security responsibilities in the community.

Zimmerman in no way violated the law, as far as anyone knows.

Approaching someone on the street is NOT illegal.

Zimmerman was (obviously) attacked.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#10
He was licenced but the understanding of the law in question is you cannot
go after the so called suspect, that was already covered in the 911 tapes.
You can approach someone but if you have a weapon, and the person who is
being followed does not see a police badge has the right to defend himself.
Too bad the kid didn't get hold of the gun. Zimmerman should do serious
time.
The other thing the people in the complex better hope Zimmerman does not
end up with a guilty verdict or even a lesser count. Those people hired him
and therefore could be responsible for damages in a civil suit.
As for being a reporter, yes I was, and once even a news director. The issue
I have here is they beat this thing to death. Not to find guilt or innocence or to
establish the full measure of the circumstances. The police, the justice system
and other special interests are trying to find a case to defend the law they
mistakenly passed.
Where is the evidence the kid did anything except to talk on a cell phone?
We have not heard one potential charge against this kid except he was walking
down the street.
If they have more I would like to hear it, but it is becoming clear they don't, they
have leaked every other excuse to legitimize what was done and its short on
content. Believe me, if they had anything they would have leaked it by now.
 
TenPenny
+2
#11
I notice that Martin supposedly had bloody knuckles, which adds a further wrinkle.

I like the idea that there will be a trial, so that someone can determine the facts.

As far as it being legal to 'approach someone' on the street, if you're waving a gun at them, it's often called robbery, but again, I'll let the courts do their thing.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I notice that Martin supposedly had bloody knuckles, which adds a further wrinkle.

I like the idea that there will be a trial, so that someone can determine the facts.

As far as it being legal to 'approach someone' on the street, if you're waving a gun at them, it's often called robbery, but again, I'll let the courts do their thing.


Where did the gun waving come from???
 
TenPenny
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Where did the gun waving come from???

I'm just joining the crowd, making stuff up when there's no other evidence. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
 
Goober
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I notice that Martin supposedly had bloody knuckles, which adds a further wrinkle.

I like the idea that there will be a trial, so that someone can determine the facts.

As far as it being legal to 'approach someone' on the street, if you're waving a gun at them, it's often called robbery, but again, I'll let the courts do their thing.

That may have come form the fight they had- 1 report had them fighting - with Zimmerman on the bottom - But I will wait for the facts to rise during the trial.
 
DurkaDurka
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Zimmerman was licensed to carry.

Zimmerman had security responsibilities in the community.

Zimmerman in no way violated the law, as far as anyone knows.

Approaching someone on the street is NOT illegal.

Zimmerman was (obviously) attacked.

How did he approach him though? I know if some dude approached me without any sort of badge or uniform, and he seemed aggressive, I would smash him in the face. Not saying that is exactly what happened here but one needs to be responsible for the outcomes their actions cause.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#16
If someone without a police badge was approaching me with or without a gun in
a manner that they were claiming I did anything, I would defend myself with all I
had. I have in fact defended myself. I don't give a damn who it is, if they have no
official authority I would assume defence is mandatory.
I have no scars and no serious wounds and that's because I never gave morons
like Zimmerman a chance to do anything. In a younger day, had I been attacked
by him yes I would have gone for the weapon and used it on him as in IE defence.
No not to kill him, but I would make it hurt. If you have ever been approached by a
fool with a large knife, it surprising what you may or may not do. The person in
question got hurt and I didn't get stabbed.
Its fine to defend someone like Zimmerman but be on the receiving end and some
may have a different point of view.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I'm just joining the crowd, making stuff up when there's no other evidence. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

Maybe you could get a job with NBC........
 
CDNBear
+1
#18
I wonder if a half naked ugly women running at you and your kids, would be an acceptable reason to get your back up.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Maybe you could get a job with NBC........

There's probably to many fat Americans working there for TP's tastes.

He'd end up in the news himself.
 
Locutus
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Maybe you could get a job with NBC........


Imagine if this was FOX instead of ABC...there would be hysterical arm-waving, hyperventilating and a good likelihood of fainting from these tender offended folk.
 
Locutus
#20
Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system - CNN.com






Photos: George Zimmerman's injuries



 
skookumchuck
#21
Witness Told Cops He Saw Trayvon Martin Straddling George Zimmerman And Punching Him "MMA Style" | The Smoking Gun
 
Praxius
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

If someone without a police badge was approaching me with or without a gun in
a manner that they were claiming I did anything, I would defend myself with all I
had. I have in fact defended myself. I don't give a damn who it is, if they have no
official authority I would assume defence is mandatory.
I have no scars and no serious wounds and that's because I never gave morons
like Zimmerman a chance to do anything. In a younger day, had I been attacked
by him yes I would have gone for the weapon and used it on him as in IE defence.
No not to kill him, but I would make it hurt. If you have ever been approached by a
fool with a large knife, it surprising what you may or may not do. The person in
question got hurt and I didn't get stabbed.
Its fine to defend someone like Zimmerman but be on the receiving end and some
may have a different point of view.

I wouldn't shoot or stab them where it just hurts.... if someone approaches me with a firearm, knife or other weapon, their intent, as far as I'm concerned, is to take my life or seriously injure me and therefore, their life is forfeit. No fancy crap, no being a hero, the fastest way I can take them down and remove the threat, that will be the course of action I take, regardless if I just disable them and pin their face into the ground until police arrive, or they end up dead. Either way, everybody has a right to defend themselves, to preserve their own well-bring and the well being of those around them they care about.

Wounding someone or seriously hurting them will most likely only make them more aggressive as they switch to survival mode & perhaps start to react like a cornered animal..... they created the situation, my concern for their well being does not exist.

As it goes for this case/topic.... I won't pick any specific side on this, as there is not enough factual information to base an opinion on, as it's mostly a "He Said / She Said" situation.

He could have been defending himself and just got caught up with shooting off his mouth at the wrong time about black people..... or he could have started the whole thing just because he had a grudge & the kid was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Either way, it's up to the evidence & courts to figure out now..... as more information comes out, I'm sure I'll figure out which side of the argument I'm on.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system

Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system - CNN.com






Photos: George Zimmerman's injuries



What does THC prove though, I've smoked a lot of pot in my day and it certainly doesn't make me aggressive.
 
Locutus
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

What does THC prove though, I've smoked a lot of pot in my day and it certainly doesn't make me aggressive.


Dunno. CNN has already changed their headline to that link twice already.
 
TenPenny
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

If someone without a police badge was approaching me with or without a gun in
a manner that they were claiming I did anything, I would defend myself with all I
had. I have in fact defended myself. I don't give a damn who it is, if they have no
official authority I would assume defence is mandatory.


What's interesting is that Zimmerman's defence is exactly what Martin may have done, and Zimmerman used as justification to kill him.

-A approaches V, who he feels is 'up to no good', or whatever
-V sees this as a threat, being approached by a random stranger at night, and under the existing law, is empowered to defend himself
-A sees this as an attack, and under the existing law, is empowered to defend himself
-A shoots V, on the assumption that V was going to shoot him.

Nice scenario, basically it means that any encounter between two people who feel threatened or empowered can easily escalate to a fatal encounter, and both parties will be in the right.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+4
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

And yet Fox still gets the bulk of criticism.

Interesting...

It is a sad day though when you don't even live up to the journalistic standards of FOX.
 
Locutus
+1
#27
The highly liberal-slanted press did a very piss-poor job vetting this situation.

Not as bad they continue to do with (the lack of) Barry's background and history though.

But this is what the masses are teat fed and the dribblings work their way into the global 'news' as well.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

The highly liberal-slanted press did a very piss-poor job vetting this situation.

Not as bad they continue to do with (the lack of) Barry's background and history though.

But this is what the masses are teat fed and the dribblings work their way into the global 'news' as well.

And the gratuitous assumptions of the left leaning members of this forum go even further than the press
eg: (If somebody came at me with a gun) with no indication that the gun came into play before they were on the ground...
It's obvious that the press doesn't have to do much to spur their illogical fantasies
 
Johnnny
#29
Why are they calling him a white supremacist and a redneck???? The guy zimmerman is hispanic....
 
lone wolf
+2
#30
I still wonder what the outcome might have been had Martin been a white guy from out of the hood....

My guess is we'd never have heard about it