Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, now that I look at the original video, there definitely are marks there. Watch the original in high-res here: http://youtu.be/HqKSMMEYHxA

Original video, then enhanced video on right:

gz.png

Thanks for the side by side.

In the original video they look like shadows and in the enhanced video it looks like overly edited shadows.

I'm not seeing 'wounds' here.
 
Thanks for the side by side.

In the original video they look like shadows and in the enhanced video it looks like overly edited shadows.

I'm not seeing 'wounds' here.

np, but they can't be shadows. If they were shadows, their position would move when he moves, but the pattern and location of the marks are constant as he moves around. They're definitely marks.
 
Thanks for the side by side.

In the original video they look like shadows and in the enhanced video it looks like overly edited shadows.

I'm not seeing 'wounds' here.

His head is shiny and reflective. Thats why its only there for a blink of an eye...

Also, if his head is that 'scratched' its just scratched.. if that is a giant laceration, he would have had stitches, and that would be apparent not just from 1 angle of the light hitting it.

I know if my head was rammed into the concrete enough to split my head open, bleed, and require stitches, I wouldn't decline a visit to the doctor to see if my brain was ok. But thats just me. Although, I more than likely would have been out of it, not small talking the police and asking permission to chill on a wall for a sec.

Goddamn the way he just struts like nothing fucking happened pisses me off every single time. My man posts on the wall for a sec even, chillin'. Damn.

Hahah you saw that shit too? "Bro, mind if I post up on the wall?" "Dude, no prob Z-Man..u cool"

the 911 call from the 13 year old witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWCYYXLuOo&t=1m2s

Apparently he wasn't questioned by the police till March.

And his mom is already saying he was asked leading questions from the police.

Including MULTIPLE CHOICE.

For some reason they just can't get a statement of what they remembered, and write it down. Its as if they should have done it closer to the time that they remembered the incident. Like at the crime scene..
 

After the BS they pulled with the 911 call I dont trust ABC on anything. That said, does look like there are 2 big scratches or something on his head for sure. I have no reason to doubt the police report of blood on the back of his head and bloody nose so makes sense. They seem really high up though. If he was being pounded to the ground you'd think they'd be lower on his head towards his neck.

Could be pre-existing scars too.
 
np, but they can't be shadows. If they were shadows, their position would move when he moves, but the pattern and location of the marks are constant as he moves around. They're definitely marks.

I do see them move. And if you watch between 10 and 14 seconds in the video you linked when he clearly shows the back of his head there are no visible marks in the same area as later on in the video.

I'm still just seeing shadows.
 
Police probably don't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, hence no arrest. Additionally they are not releasing all their information because its an active case.

It's not their job to determine that. If they know he killed the guy, he needs to be tried by a jury and claim self-defense. The cops are enforcers, not judges or juries, and even in cases of very obvious self-defense people should still go to trial because that's the way due process works.
 
I do see them move. And if you watch between 10 and 14 seconds in the video you linked when he clearly shows the back of his head there are no visible marks in the same area as later on in the video.

I'm still just seeing shadows.

The "marks" are there at the 12 second mark when he leans towards the cop then leans against the wall. Just look closely.
 
What a mess:

The Sanford police have said that once Mr. Zimmerman declared that he had shot Trayvon in the chest in self-defense, they were barred from arresting him by the state’s now-famous Stand Your Ground law, the broadest protection of self-defense in the country. It immediately requires law enforcement officials to prove that a suspect did not act in self-defense, and sets the case on a slow track.

Angela B. Corey, the state attorney for the Jacksonville area who has been appointed special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, said that the controversial 2005 law has changed the rules for prosecutors. Making arrests, filing charges and securing convictions are more difficult and time consuming. Now, she said, “there is a different standard.”

Ms. Corey said her office has handled hundreds of these self-defense cases — at least three or four every month. The law constantly challenges the authorities, with people citing it for conflicts like bar fights and road rage. “We’ve lost Stand Your Ground motions that in my experience showed the shooter should not have shot,” she said. “Stand Your Ground needs a second look.”

But Mr. Crump and Natalie Jackson, the lawyers for Trayvon’s family, said that the law does not preclude the police from properly investigating a homicide: collecting evidence, thoroughly interviewing the suspect and aggressively questioning witnesses — much of which, they maintained, did not occur in the death of Trayvon Martin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=7&partner=rss&emc=rss?
 
np, but they can't be shadows. If they were shadows, their position would move when he moves, but the pattern and location of the marks are constant as he moves around. They're definitely marks.

Find another still of his head with those marks, un-enhanced or otherwise
 
the 911 call from the 13 year old witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWCYYXLuOo&t=1m2s

Apparently he wasn't questioned by the police till march.

Wasn't he the one the police forced opinions on...

If you watch that entire video, it's rather funny to see how it ends.


The entire premise of the video is that the cops didn't care enough to interview her son for a week after the shooting. Then she goes into "leading questions", and them giving her son "multiple choice" answers to choose from.

But then at the end she says they told her standing there in her house that they did not think this was a case of self defense, and that that were was "stereotyping going on here".


So which is it? Are these cops trying to lead her son to back up Zimmerman's story, or are they absolutely certain he did it, and they're just trying to prove it?



So I can kill someone, and with no witnesses, declare Stand Your Ground and get a walk? That's the way it's being spoken of here.

Like simply telling the police that it was self defense gives me immunity from being arrested.

"Welp, he's claiming SYG boys. Let's rap it up and go back to the station."

According to the very people responsible for the writing of the law, that is now how it is to be handled. As we've heard repeatedly now, the state's attorney stepped in and told them not to press charges. Zimmerman's father is a former judge. It seems quite possible that is the simple explanation here. Zimmerman's dad had connections, intervened, and the state's attorney said no charges.

I really don't believe that law was written or intends for people to get away with shootings like this.
 
Find another still of his head with those marks, un-enhanced or otherwise

gz2.png


The marks retain their position: slightly to the right of the middle of the back of his head, in three separate positions: to the left, directly under, and to the right of the light source on the ceiling.
 
So I can kill someone, and with no witnesses, declare Stand Your Ground and get a walk? That's the way it's being spoken of here.

Like simply telling the police that it was self defense gives me immunity from being arrested.

"Welp, he's claiming SYG boys. Let's rap it up and go back to the station."

Yes, this is how it seems. If you are ever in a situation where you have to shoot someone, make sure that they die.
 
hes talking about the bridge of his skull, that was already discussed when the video first surfaced. When it was just a "bump."

I see that - all I see are shadows of bumps. And looking at the video in motion, it's super duper clear. Go to the original video and check it from the 55sec mark onward (I said this earlier too) you can actually see the mark appear and appear under the change in lighting.

To put the nail in the coffin, slow mo close up of the spots on his head, take a look.

http://youtu.be/PugZx43Dt1Y?t=2m23s
 
And you see marks in this where? I just see that bump on his head - the one casting shadows, no vertical red gashes anywhere.

Especially when you compare to the original pictures you show - which have it nowhere near the original position, look at that left mark, in your first picture it is on the left side - do you see it again in these new pictures?

Maybe the marks show up better in this:

gz3.png


The marks I'm referring to appear as the dark patterns on GZ's head. Look at the inverted shots of the cop's head: the tone of his head remains consistently smooth, which indicates no marks.
 
Maybe the marks show up better in this:

gz3.png


The marks I'm referring to appear as the dark patterns on GZ's head. Look at the inverted shots of the cop's head: the tone of his head remains consistently smooth, which indicates no marks.

Check the video above brah. It clears it up.

Also - imagine someone getting their head smashed into the side walk - would it appear near the top if their head, or on the back?
 
So I can kill someone, and with no witnesses, declare Stand Your Ground and get a walk? That's the way it's being spoken of here.

Like simply telling the police that it was self defense gives me immunity from being arrested.

"Welp, he's claiming SYG boys. Let's rap it up and go back to the station."

The GTA3 hooker dark alley money back situation popped up in my head. :\

I'm sure this type of no investigation SYG situation only works if the person claiming SYG has awesome connections, or is a off duty cop.
 
I see that - all I see are shadows of bumps. And looking at the video in motion, it's super duper clear. Go to the original video and check it from the 55sec mark onward (I said this earlier too) you can actually see the mark appear and appear under the change in lighting.

To put the nail in the coffin, slow mo close up of the spots on his head, take a look.

http://youtu.be/PugZx43Dt1Y?t=2m23s

I did check the video, and when it's blown up to that size, you lose the clarity of the marks. I think the source of that video is a lower resolution than the one I linked to above. Just a guess.
 
Maybe the marks show up better in this:

[IMhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/Xcellere/gz3.png[/IMG]

The marks I'm referring to appear as the dark patterns on GZ's head. Look at the inverted shots of the cop's head: the tone of his head remains consistently smooth, which indicates no marks.

That's a negative image so the top of his shiny head, which would be bright white reflecting the over head lighting, turned dark in the negative. Photoshop masters.
 
Maybe his head is wonky, or had a recovered head injury from before.

Cause a head injury severe enough to make a visible dent on the cranium ain't gonna go unattended. It'd require at least some bandage at least.
 
I did check the video, and when it's blown up to that size, you lose the clarity of the marks. I think the source of that video is a lower resolution than the one I linked to above. Just a guess.

C'mon bro - various shots, black and white, slow mo - you can literally SEE the lighting cast the shadow and then disappear as he moves his head, I would gif it if I knew how.
 
C'mon bro - various shots, black and white, slow mo - you can literally SEE the lighting cast the shadow and then disappear as he moves his head, I would gif it if I knew how.

Like I said earlier, a shadow wouldn't retain a constant shape and location on an object as it shifts positions under a static light source, which the "marks" appear to do. These images are the first time I've seen something credible come from GZ's side, as I've been pretty staunch prior to this in believing he was 100% culpable: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=36544550&postcount=7648

Edit: I filled the patterns I'm referring to in as red patterns. The pattern looks like parallel columns with a gap between them.

gz5.png
 
I see that - all I see are shadows of bumps. And looking at the video in motion, it's super duper clear. Go to the original video and check it from the 55sec mark onward (I said this earlier too) you can actually see the mark appear and appear under the change in lighting.

To put the nail in the coffin, slow mo close up of the spots on his head, take a look.

http://youtu.be/PugZx43Dt1Y?t=2m23s

I just noticed this. Why is the Camera wavering so much? wind?
 
It's like some people aren't even reading what I say. There should be a study done on this psychology playing out before our eyes.

You take what I post as a defense of Zimmerman, even though I've probably said 50 times in this thread by now that Zimmerman committed a horrible crime that night, and should got to jail for a long time for what he did. Who are you arguing with? Because it's not me.

Doesn't matter what you think. You tried to prove me wrong with that link when in fact you were flat out wrong, lol. Next time get your facts straight before you make a fool out of yourself again.
 
I don't really understand the need to invest in either option when the ability to know for sure one way or another is not hard to attain. Either there are photos, hospital records and supporting statements from officers and/or EMTs providing first aid, or there isn't. Playing video detective and declaring what the truth is based on it is little more than impatience at work.
 
I don't really understand the need to invest in either option when the ability to know for sure one way or another is not hard to attain. Either there are photos, hospital records and supporting statements from officers and/or EMTs providing first aid, or there isn't. Playing video detective and declaring what the truth is based on it is little more than impatience at work.

Obviously - this whole thread is little more than impatience at work. I don't understand what YOUR point is, that we shouldn't be doing it for some arbitrary reason? It makes people feel better arguing over this sort of thing - it gives us something to do regarding a case that obviously has a lot of people emotionally invested.
 
I don't really understand the need to invest in either option when the ability to know for sure one way or another is not hard to attain. Either there are photos, hospital records and supporting statements from officers and/or EMTs providing first aid, or there isn't. Playing video detective and declaring what the truth is based on it is little more than impatience at work.

It's not investing in either option. I'm trying to give either option a fair shake as much as possible. If one option has substance, we should try to point it out.

And "Either there are photos, hospital records and supporting statements from officers and/or EMTs providing first aid, or there isn't." The entire backdrop of this case is incomplete records and shoddy fact finding from the authorities. I'm personally putting a bit of effort into this because of that fact and because there's so much noise with little reason in the mix.
 
Well, the cop does look at Zimmerman's back of the head at 3:10. Could be coincidence.

Few seconds later you do see something but it could easily be an artifact.

I just noticed this. Why is the Camera wavering so much? wind?

Because it's not the original video, but one zoomed in to focus on the moving head of Zimmerman.
 
Actually, now that I look at the original video, there definitely are marks there. Watch the original in 480p here from 0:17 to 0:25, you can clearly see the marks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HqKSMMEYHxA#t=17s

Original video, then enhanced video on right:

gz.png

There is plenty of R from the RGB gamut in the first picture. Why it is "popping" in the wound on the second picture is very weird. Especially given the baseline red of his jacket. They really overindexed on blue or cyan in the second pic too. Look at the cop's skin hue. That's far from natural.
 
Obviously - this whole thread is little more than impatience at work. I don't understand what YOUR point is, that we shouldn't be doing it for some arbitrary reason? It makes people feel better arguing over this sort of thing - it gives us something to do regarding a case that obviously has a lot of people emotionally invested.

But argument is not allowed, didn't you hear? It annoys everyone and they grow tired of those nasty contrarian trolls just looking to get a rise out of people.

In this instance, though, using this video to declare with any finality that Zimmerman was or was not injured is silly, but even more so given the factors I mentioned. Please do not assume I'm referring to everyone when I say that, but you and I both know plenty in here have taken this video as absolute proof. It's unnecessary and premature.
 
There is plenty of R from the RGB gamut in the first picture. Why it is "popping" in the wound on the second picture is very weird. Especially given the baseline red of his jacket. They really overindexed on blue or cyan in the second pic too. Look at the cop's skin hue. That's far from natural.

It looks like they just increased saturation. I think they were just trying to show the consistency and prominence of the patterns.
 
It's not investing in either option. I'm trying to give either option a fair shake as much as possible. If one option has substance, we should try to point it out.
But I think this particular instance may actually be moot regardless of whether or not he has marks on his head or not. If he did, then it proves that he was likely in some sort of physical altercation that may have caused it. If he doesn't, then his claims of being in a life or death struggle don't hold much water (just as his claim that he was the one screaming). I say we should agree to disagree and see what else comes out (like the fact that the second ambulance was canceled despite his alleged broken nose and battered head).
 
Doesn't matter what you think. You tried to prove me wrong with that link when in fact you were flat out wrong, lol. Next time get your facts straight before you make a fool out of yourself again.

lmfao

Do you really want to keep digging that hole? You're the one who's cornered themselves into defining *near* and *saw*, not me.

The ladies in that video I provided say they were talking to Zimmerman. Asking him questions. How far away do you think they were? Too far to know if he had a coat on or not? That's where this started. Me saying they were close enough to know whether he was wearing a coat or not, and you interjected your nonsense at that point.
 
But I think this particular instance may actually be moot regardless of whether or not he has marks on his head or not. If he did, then it proves that he was likely in some sort of physical altercation that may have caused it. If he doesn't, then his claims of being in a life or death struggle don't hold much water (just as his claim that he was the one screaming). I say we should agree to disagree and see what else comes out (like the fact that the second ambulance was canceled despite his alleged broken nose and battered head).

Agreed. We still need more information that hasn't been released yet.
 
But argument is not allowed, didn't you hear? It annoys everyone and they grow tired of those nasty contrarian trolls just looking to get a rise out of people.

In this instance, though, using this video to declare with any finality that Zimmerman was or was not injured is silly, but even more so given the factors I mentioned. Please do not assume I'm referring to everyone when I say that, but you and I both know plenty in here have taken this video as absolute proof. It's unnecessary and premature.

It's all silly, playing internet detective or internet general or whatever it may be - but that's not something I'd deride.

Look, I don't know if you don't understand how to play the game, but if you word your arguments right, you can be a 'contrarian' - you can make a point against the masses. It's just that obviously when you take up such a position, you need to tread extremely carefully. Not fair, but practical.

Me, for example? I think that race plays a negligible role in what happened. Taking up that position, and arguing it has never gotten me yelled at in this thread, called names or anything - you just need to know your audience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom