http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/11/trayvon-martin-target-gun-range/

Nothing really to discuss, just this link

This is the kind of **** you would expect the onion to be reporting, but then here it is and it's true

An armaments company who believes zimmerman is in the right for gunning down an innocent boy walking home from the store

Decided it would be cool to make gun targets based off of that boy

Who died

That's disturbing as hell.

The world has a lot of stupid people out there.

I think that gif says it all, really...

ain't that some ****

Zimmerman had a reason. A stupid-*** reason, one that did not justify executing someone, sure, but neither party was "innocent".

That being said, Zimmerman is a stupid vigilante "justice" troglodyte whom I would love to see behind bars.

And yes, you can expect people to support him, unfortunately. It's a damn shame, and the best case scenario is that the people who bought those are misinformed, rather than stupid.

There are FPShooter games where you (the player) are a soldier shooting Nazis or terrorists and so on. With a few exceptions relating to historical figures, the enemies are rendered, programed game elements with no greater identity or significance.

Mass producing targets representing a person with a name, past, etc who was gunned down very recently, for actual firearms is much more realistic. Mentally stable people don't like to directly kill, it's very damaging and traumatic. Frankly the targets described are 1 step away from killing a real person.

I'm a progressive who is okay (less now) with possession of firearms but thinks they should be MUCH more regulated. I went to high school in the Columbine shooting state (CO). I remember listening to headphones while reading during study hall (I didn't attend Columbine high school btw), the song (by Weird Al) had a gunshot sound; I practically fell out of my chair thinking someone shot a gun off in the school.
Targets like those appeal to disturbed people with guns and that scares the hell out of me. I'm not even in the south. Though I technically think people should have the right to bare arms, the presence of so many easily obtained weapons has gone way too far; in places it's easier to get a gun than a driver's license. People WITH guns kill people, not 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Besides their are laws against threatening people, which I think should include targets like those. A motto of mine is '90% of anything is prevention'. Targets designed to represent a real person (a citizen too, not terrorist leader or anything) for real firearms selling like hotcakes, 2+2= ticking time bomb. Nip this in the bud before more shootings.

_________________
(I realize these forums are international so if mentioning Nazi killing games crossed the line, maybe for Europeans, just say so. No harm intended.)

So an unarmed teenager

Running from a man with a gun

isn't "innocent" to you?

The reason Trayvon was shot was because Zimmerman assumed, based on race or apparel, that this boy was a thug. This boy was shot because he was wearing a sweater.

Zimmerman was treated for injuries right after the incident. While it's hard to truly say what exactly happened, there is a possibility that Trayvon did attack first. Being unarmed doesn't really mean that the person is innocent, as you can still injure someone while being unarmed. If it's the case that Trayvon did cause those injuries, then that means that Trayvon isn't as innocent as he's been played out to be. Trayvon being unarmed DOES mean that, by using a gun, Zimmerman likely used excessive force. And then there's the undisputed fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. This is why there's reason to believe that neither side in this is completely innocent. Perhaps the details of the incident will be sorted out once the trial starts.

Anyway, back on topic... No matter what happened, I'm a bit horrified that someone would make targets based on Trayvon. There's no way Trayvon deserves having targets based off of him, and it's even more appalling that people would buy those.

I did not know this

Just googled, and apparently this guy had a broken nose and a hit to the back of the head

So it's possible that Trayvon did inflict these injuries, plausible even, sometime before or after this guy started chasing him with a gun. I would wager after, considering there's no real motivation for Trayvon to just attack someone while walking home from the store (especially not when you're carrying groceries)

I am interested to see how the trial plays out

The fact that you didn't know might just be the way the Canadian news media covered it. I dunno how much they were following the story, as this is an American case. Canadian news media might have stopped caring about the case by the time some details were sorted out.

Considering that Trayvon was worried about the guy (Zimmerman) following him, it's also possible that Trayvon did take the first step, as a preemptive measure. This is what's been going back and forth with what information we know so far. Sorting this out is what the trial's for.

You shouldn't be, since The American Militia Powered by Twitter and Yahoo.com™ is going to be after whoever comes out on top.

I've never really thought about it, but gosh, the American people sure love vigilante justice just for the hell of it.

I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but wasn't the Boston Massacre just Boston citizens being total *******s?

Zimmerman's case is too inconsistent and late presented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-started-confrontation-zimmerman-lawyer-says/2012/03/26/gIQAIlr0cS_story.html
"Sonner’s account of Zimmerman’s injuries is consistent with the Sanford Police Department report, written by the officer at the crime scene who handcuffed Zimmerman. “I could observe his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground,” the officer wrote. “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”
+
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-case-enhan_n_1397022.html

"but ABC news has enhanced the video showing signs of injury on Zimmerman's head. ABC's Matt Gutman said the network re-digitized the video to reveal what appears to be "a pair of gashes or welts" on the back of Zimmerman's head. This discovery is more consistent with Zimmerman's account of what happened the night of Feb. 26. According to a police report first described by the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman told investigators that Martin jumped him from behind, punched him in the nose and pounded his head into the sidewalk."
...
"Craig Sonner, Zimmerman's lawyer, said the video was "too grainy" to show the injuries his client claimed he sustained in his fight with Martin. However, the funeral director who handled the body of the slain teen told Nancy Grace there were no cuts, bruises or signs of a fight on Martin's body.
"I didn't see any evidence he had been fighting anybody," Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale told the television talk show host."
=
I'll admit I have a strong bias against the "News" media.  But it's not unheard of for TV to outright lie or for police to be corrupt when it comes to beating or killing people from prejudice.  Frankly I've had nose bleeds and they show.  Bleeding from the nose and back of the head shows, the nose has many shallow blood vessels and the head bleeds a lot.  Blood shows, it's red.  It stains.    "Zimmerman told investigators that Martin jumped him from behind, punched him in the nose and pounded his head into the sidewalk."  (it's hard to punch someone's nose from behind).
he then 'got in a fight with Martin' leaving no evidence of it on Martin's body, then shot him.  And the video was "too grainy" to show injuries Zimmerman sustained until "ABC news has enhanced the video showing signs of injury on Zimmerman's head."
so either Zimmerman is Superman or 2+2=5.

To be blunt my personal opinion is ABC "News" can go _____ a herd of ________.
(Sorry about the formatting, cutting and pasting does weird stuff to the forums)

on the topic of "enhancing"

The FBI has also "enhanced" the audio from the zimmerman's 911 call
(http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-sent-fbi-analysis)

I'd like to explain what "enhancing" actually means

It's literally guesswork. When someone enhances a video, it's not like CSI where the machine makes the pixels smaller and suddenly you know who everyone is, It's guesswork based on clues in the pixels. When you "enhance" audio or video to be "clearer", you're literally running it through what might as well be photoshop

For this reason, "enhanced" evidence cannot be presented in court, and depending on the case, the judge might have to call in another jury if it is presented to them (or at least this is how it works in canada)

The quote you posted says that the police department confirmed that there were injuries. Maybe you posted it out of the context of the rest of the article, but it doesn't seem like an inconsistency to me. More than the lolABC reports you mention later, this police account is probably what the whole "Zimmerman was injured" claim is based off of.

I'd like you to be specific on where the inconsistency is. Maybe I'm missing something.



That was bad journalism on ABC's part. While messing with the video could mean that they faked it, it could have also just been an enhancement of what was already there. The editing of the video does make it worthless, so that can't be used to prove he had injuries. However, the presence of "enhancements" does NOT prove that there were no injuries.

EDIT: I'm glad I checked posts before posting this. Gala's [Tybalt Maxwell] got the right idea about enhancing: It's useful to guess and illustrate what might have happened, but it's worthless as actual evidence either way.

Zimmerman took one shot (probably went straight for his weapon), so there would probably not be any other cuts or bruises besides the shot wound. Honestly, this is evidence that Zimmerman acted too soon, if anything.

I would like to know what other "signs of fight" the funeral director was checking for.



I've had a nosebleed. They can cleaned up right away.

It isn't unheard of for the news media to lie or mislead. IIRC, early on in the case, the 911 call Zimmerman made was actually edited in such a way that made his intentions seem more racist than the unedited call.

While it's true that the news media can (and does) lie, but I do think your admitted bias seems to be causing you to assume that it is, by default, false. I'm not sure that's a reasonable claim, unless you have evidence to show that more than 50% of news reports are, indeed, false.

^Let me walk through Zimmerman's story:
Martin jumped him from behind and punched him in the nose- Martin must have had one hell of a hook to punch Z's nose from behind. Name 1 other scenario where when attacking from behind the best target to punch is the nose.

M then pounded his head into the sidewalk. IDK how you got a nose bleed but injuries to the head bleed buckets (exaggeration). Getting punched in the nose and having his head smashed into the sidewalk should bleed a lot from the nose and head. Where's the blood? On the sidewalk on the grass? On the nest block on the pass? There IS NO blood here or there, there is no blood anywhere!  The officer who handcuffed Z wrote: “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”

Z managed to pull his "smashed on the sidewalk" and "punched in the nose" head up and sustain a fight with M. In his attorney's words: the video was "too grainy" to show the injuries his client claimed he sustained in his fight with Martin.
What a guy, Z got jumped from behind, hit in the nose, had his head smashed into the sidewalk then he gets up and sustains a fight with M and leaves no blood.  Most people would suffer serious brain injuries or die from that.  Z didn't even go for his gun first, bleed or have wounds that show up on camera!

Signs of a fight are also used in judging child abuse.  If a parent leaves bruises that is enough to qualify.  So by Z's story he got in a fight with M after all that but didn't hurt M enough to bruise M.  Were they throwing skittles back and forth?!

Z then shot and killed M. 
The police who handcuffed Z said he was bleeding (present tense btw).  But it didn't show on video; if you poked your finger with a sewing needle that would show on video.  So ABC enhanced the video.  Why would they do that if it's not legit enough to be used as evidence?  As sarcastically mentioned in my last post, is it because Z is Superman and they don't want to reveal his secret identity or are the outright lying to influence people?

To summarize the inconsistencies:
Z was jumped from behind and punched in the nose which is in the FRONT of the face.
Z's head was then smashed into the sidewalk, the police office wrote that Z was bleeding from both the nose and back of his head.  Blood doesn't pause during a fight-Z should have lost a LOT of blood all over the sidewalk, himself and M if it kept bleeding until the police arrived.
Z got in a fight with M but didn't even BRUISE him.  No blood was splattered during the fight either (look at Z's jacket, no blood).  My CAT has injured me more than that when I picked her up off my office chair when she was a kitten.
ABC enhanced the video- for no reason other than to deceive people (unless you have a better explanation) and it still didn't show any blood or bleeding
If someone wrote a fictional story of this and asked me to critique it I'd say 'start over this doesn't work'.  This is the kind of thing that makes me hate the media.  The only part that adds up is Z shot M.  Having false stories makes Z look even more guilty, the police of the area corrupt and ABC news, well about the same because the corrupt media has been pulling BS for a long time.

The face is a pretty vulnerable target. More vulnerable than any part behind a person. If you jumped on a person's back, you can pretty easy reach and hit the face. It doesn't take that much force to give someone a mere nosebleed.

If you're on a person's back, can you think of a much better place to strike? The only other thing I can think of is possibly trying to trip them at the legs, but if you're already on a person's back...



So you think the officer lied? Keep in mind that the officer made the report about the arrest, meaning (at that time) they'd have no reason to be on Zimmerman's side to give the police an incentive to lie.

You'd have to confirm that it was a lie for sure by providing a picture of the sidewalk EXACTLY where the struggle happened, right after it happened. Maybe one such picture will be presented at the trial, and maybe it's being kept solely for that purpose.

If you're basing this claim on the video, keep in mind that the video shown was NOT taped at the scene. It was taped at the police department, hence Zimmerman leaving the vehicle.



If the video is considered "too grainy" to show injuries, then I'd say that there are definitely things the camera would miss. The attorney was bringing the video quality into question. Looking at the original video, it's pretty bad quality.

You can hit something hard enough for it to bleed a lot on the outside, but not cause internal injuries. Considering what was stated in the police report, Zimmerman's injuries were not serious.

Does Zimmerman claim he didn't go for his gun first? If so, then that's where I'd say his story has a weakness. The lack of bruises on Trayvon shows that Zimmerman didn't respond much besides the gunshot.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to defend Zimmerman's entire case. I'm just saying that Zimmerman was likely injured based on the evidence, unless everyone has been lying. To assume that everyone's lying is a pretty big assumption to make.



Don't they have specialists to determine that, rather than funeral directors? And keep in mind that signs of a fight isn't just being on the receiving end. There are more internal signs of fight that I don't know if a funeral director would catch onto.

As far as I know, it was a one-sided fight at first UNTIL Zimmerman pulled out the gun.



As I said before, from what I've seen the video quality is pretty bad. It would take a very serious injury for it to show. None of the reported injuries were serious.

There are reasons besides deception to edit a video. If you watch the reports, ABC was up front and honest about the enhancements they made. They sharpened the video in order to illustrate that injuries may have occurred. They were also showing the unedited video as a comparison. Considering what a journalist's job is, I would say that illustrating what (could have?) happened is more in keeping with their job than trying to provide evidence.


Since your last part is pretty much a tl;dr of the rest of your post, I have omitted it.

What bothers me is the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman

It just doesn't make sense to me

Like, this kid doesn't seem to have motivation to attack this guy

And if he did, it seems logical he would have chosen a time when he WASN'T carrying groceries home to stage this attack

Like, everyone here has worn a hoodie atleast once, ja? So everyone should know how hard it is to run with things in the pockets without those things falling out. And this is just keys and stuff, this guy had a pack of skittles and an arizona tea, which comes in a huge can

There's just no reasonable explanation as to why Trayvon would attack this guy. Running up behind someone, punching them in the face (I'll assume Zimmerman left out the portion where he turned around to confront the guy who surprised him) and then smashing their head against the ground, it all requires a lot of upper body movement, which is kind of crippled when you're carrying things

All this **** just doesn't add up, man

Jumped, not jumped on.  Look, you're really fishing for excuses; when attacking someone from behind by a forceful blow you hit the back of their head.  You can't punch someone in the nose from behind.  No one aims for the nose from behind with a punch, not in martial arts, not even in movies.  Strangling's a better option.

Have you ever read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?  It's not pleasant to think about but people commit acts of violence and torture, even killing, to people for no reason besides a person's race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King this was the 1st major case filmed that got people involved but racism was and still is present and police are no exception.

This is basically our argument:  http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-29/nation/31250285_1_police-car-supporters-face-and-head
"Zimmerman’s attorney, Craig Sonner, has said in more than one interview that his client’s nose was broken during the fight with Martin. The Orlando Sentinel, citing anonymous sources, has reported that Martin grabbed Zimmerman’s head and banged it several times against the sidewalk. A statement from Sanford police said the newspaper’s story was “consistent’’ with evidence turned over to prosecutors.
Sonner said the gash on the back of Zimmerman’s head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing. Miguel Meza, who identified himself as Zimmerman’s cousin, said Zimmerman was in “the fight of his life.’’
“This certainly doesn’t look like a man who police said had his nose broken and his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk,’’ Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin’s family, said in a statement. “George Zimmerman has no apparent injuries in this video, which dramatically contradicts his version of the events of February 26.’’
Sonner did not immediately return an after-hours call.
Crump called the video “riveting’’ and “icing on the cake’’ that Zimmerman should be held accountable for what happened."
______________________
here is a picture of a broken nose from a fight: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/mike16acres/MikeBrokenNose03.jpg
This is what Zimmerman looks like in the video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoWh4oftEqw
^That is not what a man who's nose was just broken, has (back of the) head injuries "serious enough for stitches" and was in “the fight of his life.’’ looks like.  Martin was shot but showed no signs of a fight.

Short answer: yes, I believe the officer was lying.

Taped probably 30 minutes later.

Seriously look at the video.  It didn't miss what they're claiming about Zimmerman's injuries.  It's not that poor in quality, it didn't need to be enhanced, he wasn't injured, they lied and they know it.  This is WHY people video these things because the story told by a man who just killed a teenager can easily be proven BS.

Broken nose, needed stitches on the back of his head.

This is half what I'm saying.  Where's 'the fight of his life'.  A grown man fighting a teenager should get a few hits in at least.  I don't see how the fight could happen after Zimmerman shot Martin.

"everyone has been lying" That's the kind of meaningless comment news programs make (like 'we all remember').  Who's everyone?  It's an inaccurate hyperbole.  Did I say 'everyone'?  No.  Everyone excludes no one and many people around the world aren't even aware of this case.  And what is 'everyone' lying about?  Which part?  Assuming 'everyone' was lying would be a big assumption- that's why I didn't make it.

Bodies are prepared before funerals.  A fight would leave at least some evidence externally. 

Is a 'one sided fight' even a fight?  Or 'the fight of his life'?

The reported injuries, broken nose, needed stitches were serious enough to show.  'Grainy' is an opinion I disagree with.  There are a lot of times and places the video was posted online but I think the quality's not bad.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoWh4oftEqw
To call a spade a spade, the claimed injuries don't exist.  'Grainy', especially describing that^ is just stalling via opinion (which by nature isn't lying or saying anything solid).

"They sharpened the video in order to illustrate that injuries may have occurred." bingo.  That's not what it looked like but Zimmerman could look worse if they played with the image.  Same deceptive principle with advertising 'the model looks different in real life but we airbrushed her so her image fits how we want her to look better'.

____________________________
There are a lot of examples of why I hate the media in this post :/
Everyone deserves a fair trial, which I of course can't do and it's not my place.  But how the FL police and media have covered the case disgusts me to the core.  It's obvious what I think happened.

Agree.

I missed that difference. Sorry. This does poke a hole in Zimmerman's story, but I don't think it affects the police report.



Zimmerman may have had a racial motivation. This has nothing to do with whether he had injuries or not.

Looking at the lawyer's story, it appears to be an exaggeration. This DOES NOT match with the police report. The police report says that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head. You can definitely get a bloody nose WITHOUT breaking it, and you can bleed in places WITHOUT needing stitches. You appear to be taking what the lawyer says and you're applying it to the police report.

I've already said that while I trust the police report that Zimmerman was injured, I don't think they were serious injuries. However, I think this is a key point that's causing our argument in the first place, and I don't think either of us will budge on that one. We're both asking for specific evidence, where specific evidence does not exist yet: If any specific evidence exists, then it would be presented at the trial.

It's kinda funny how we're truly arguing over this small detail, yet we're (I'm probably guilty of this too) misrepresenting the argument as something larger.



That video's pretty bad quality. Maybe it's just the quality of the videos floating around on the internet, or maybe I'm just blind and dumb, but I have trouble even seeing details on Zimmerman's face.



As I said, this is the Lawyer's claim. This is NOT the police report.



I think the whole "fight for his life" thing was sensationalism. I was saying the fight happened first. Zimmerman, instead of hitting back, went for his gun.

Honestly, and I said this up front, I don't think Zimmerman is innocent. While I think a fight occurred, I don't think Zimmerman was seriously injured enough to consider it self-defense.



That was a bit of a generalization, and I apologize for that. I didn't mean that you thought everyone was lying: I meant that you appeared to be disputing sources based on the fact that they have a chance of being false.



If Zimmerman went straight for his gun after being knocked down, the gunshot wound would be the only sign of fight Trayvon would have had.



One-sided fight. Zimmerman did something to provoke Trayvon to attack him. Zimmerman goes straight for his gun instead of hitting back.


The part I omitted seems to be mostly a summary, or things that have already been addressed. If you disagree and want me to address it, just tell me.




How you think it happened and how I think it happened are probably different. Here's my guess at to what happened...

1. Zimmerman approaches Trayvon, being suspicious of Trayvon for unknown (possibly racial) reasons.
2. Trayvon is worried about the guy approaching him.  Rightly so, as Zimmerman has no business approaching Trayvon.
3. Zimmerman speaks to Trayvon. We don't hear exactly what is said for the whole conversation , but it's possibly that there was some accusation or racial remark.
4. Trayvon, likely provoked, attacks Zimmerman. Probably not exactly as Zimmerman describes. Zimmerman gets fairly minor injuries from the fight.
5. Zimmerman shoots Trayvon. My guess is that Zimmerman shoots him before even trying to really fight back at Trayvon.

#1 comes from Zimmerman's phone call.
#2 and part of #3 comes from Trayvon's phone call. He drops the phone for an unknown reason and we don't hear the details of the conversation.
#4 comes from the police report of Zimmerman's injuries. Based on that report, Zimmerman seems to have been in some sort of fight.
#5... We know for sure that Zimmerman shot Trayvon. The fact that Trayvon wasn't otherwise injured (besides the gunshot) leads me to believe that Zimmerman went straight for his gun.

I don't feel that either side was truly innocent. Zimmerman likely provoked Trayvon, which provoked Zimmerman. This does NOT hold as a self-defense case that Zimmerman claims it is, but I do not think that Zimmerman made the decision to kill unprovoked.

hey guys what's going on in this thread