What about in this pic?
I guess that anonymous picture of the back of someone’s head that was sold to ABC two months after the incident after being mysteriously unavailable heretofore proves everything, especially in a case where police have already tampered with evidence and no one officially involved in the trial will confirm that they even claim it is authentic?
What evidence has the police tampered with?
ETA: I read the first couple pages of this thread and then left it because it bored me so I’m just now checking back in.
Well, then, that’s more like evidence, no? Still waiting on the medical reports though.
No, I don’t think it “proves everything.” On the other hand, it’s decent evidence that Zimmerman really was injured.
Exactly what did they do and how do you know it? And please do not rely on any news sources, since those might be lying just like ABC might be lying about the picture.
Yes, agreed.
It’s wise to be cautious. However, at a certain point, reasonable caution can turn into unreasonable resistance to a reasonable conclusion.
Yes, that’s true.
But I don’t think we’re there yet.
Who took the picture? When? And whose head is it?
How do you know?
Perhaps not, but at a minimum we’re getting close.
I don’t know who took the picture, but it was apparently taken of George Zimmerman’s head a few minutes after the shooting.
Because of media reports. Of course, one should never completely trust media reports but I think it’s pretty unlikely they are wrong about this.
ETA: Let me ask you this: Are you reasonably confident that there really is someone out there named “George Zimmerman” who has been charged with a crime in connection with the shooting of someone named “Trayvon Martin”? If so, why?
The same media that put Zimmerman at 250?
Why not wait until the EMT report?
Becuase the persons asserting this fact have allowed themselves to be named, because the information is available via official records, such as the court docket, and because the information does not favor one interpretation over another.
It’s simple really.
When the media publishes something that is contrary to brazil84’s premise… then they are idiots, and you should use extreme scepticism when reading what they say.
When the media publishes something that agrees with brazil84’s premise… then they are prescient and thoughtful, and you should give respect to what they say.
Unfortunately, I think there is some truth in this summary.
But I am obliged to point out the fact that there are other posters who are doing the same thing, except their premise is that Zimmerman is a murderer, and are applying that filter to stories.
Yes, assuming they did.
Wait until the EMT report for what?
Have you gone to Florida to review these official records yourself? Or have you relied on the dreaded media?
I don’t engage with this person because of his past strawmanning.
Not even anyone affiliated with George Zimmerman, his family, or his defense team has so much as claimed that this a real picture. We’re not at the stage where we need to evaluate the credibility of the picture because the only person claiming it’s real is an anonymous person who made a lot of money selling it to ABC. It’s not potential “evidence” of anything until the people whose job it is to present evidence in Zimmerman’s favor make the assertion that this constitutes said evidence, at which point the provenance of the picture could be debated. At this point it’s about as relevant to the case as an editorial cartoon.
Of course, when the time does come to get into the nuts and bolts of the mysteriously disappearing and reappearing head wounds from the “bashing into concrete,” we can then ask why the police report indicates grass stains on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt. Perhaps this was some sort of…snort…MAGIC pavement?
So according to you, any claim about the case which is presented by the media without attribution to a person who is either named or affiliated with a party carries no weight at all. Do I understand you correctly?
ETA: Please answer my other question too: Exactly what did the police do to tamper with evidence and how do you know it?
Along with the time delay and the financial interest of the person who produced the photo, it certainly lessens its weight, yes…?
From the same source that published the photo: