9804 replies to this topic

[tech guy]

did both of his lungs collapse instantly?

Both of Trayvon Martin's lungs were collapsed by the gunshot. This is according to the autopsy report. Both lungs were also pierced by jacket fragments or the bullet core. This would immediately prevent the pressure necessary to generate sound. It's a no brainer. By the way, a coroner is a forensic pathologist.

[BeAChooser]

Sealed, and his little brother said months ago that he had asked Trayvon to pick up the Skittles for him.

It's been claimed he was buying them for his younger brother, but when was that claim actually made and by whom? I believe it was the Martin's attorney who first made the claim around March 7th when he said

http://www.reuters.c...E82709M20120308

"What do the police find in his pocket? Skittles," Crump said. "A can of Arizona ice tea in his jacket pocket and Skittles in his front pocket for his brother Chad."

But I haven't seen this Chad, his "brother" actually interviewed about this. Can you provide a link?

And did Trayvon really leave the 13 -14 year old he was supposed to be babysitting all alone? Was that a responsible thing to do?

But even more significant, Martin's mom told ABC News that Trayvon was her youngest son. She said

http://abcnews.go.co...kouts-petition/

That was my baby, my youngest son

So who is this Chad, the 13-14 year old that both you and Crump called Trayvon's brother?

Well it turns out he's the son of the Dad's girlfriend, Ms Green.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

That night, for example, while his father and Ms. Green were out having dinner in Orlando, Trayvon asked Chad, Ms. Green’s son, if he wanted anything from the store.

So you don't know as much about this case as you pretend. And I'm VERY curious how the lawyer could make make such a huge mistake. He wasn't trying to influence the public, was he? And if he could get that fact wrong, what else has he said that's wrong?

BeAChooser, on 28 May 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:
Well my understanding is that the skittles were in his pocket and the can was found under him.

Wrong, that's not what the discovery said.

Well the discovery documents state that the skittles were in his pocket. And in the above Reuters link you can see that Crump told the press that the skittles were found in a pocket. So that much Crump apparently got right.

But I don't see reference in the discovery documents to an Arizona canned drink other there being a picture of a can of Arizona watermelon juice on top of the body bag. I don't find where it was found. The reuters article said Crump said a can of "Arizona ice tea" was in his jacket. But should I take Crump's word on the location when he apparently misidentified it as "ice tea"? Or were there two Arizona cans at the site of the investigation? Should I trust Crump when he didn't even know Chad wasn't Trayvon's "brother" … except perhaps in the sense that blacks call each other? Or perhaps the story (lie?) that was pushed about "Chad" hadn't quite solidified yet?

Edited by BeAChooser, 29 May 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[LonelySolophist420]

Both of Trayvon Martin's lungs were collapsed by the gunshot. This is according to the autopsy report. Both lungs were also pierced by jacket fragments or the bullet core. This would immediately prevent the pressure necessary to generate sound.

lol yes I know i have read it no it is not a no brainier, the lungs have compartments that can remain functional enough to speak even after they are punctured. Lung collapse in gun shot wounds depends on how big the lung is, were on the lung it is, as well as how long it takes for the pleural cavity to fill up with enough blood to collapse the lungs

. By the way, a coroner is a forensic pathologist.

.Lol ok i am not questioning the credibility of the coroner just your retarded ass claim

It's been claimed he was buying them for his younger brother, but when was that claim actually made and by whom? I believe it was the Martin's attorney who first made the claim around March 7th when he said

http://www.reuters.c...E82709M20120308


But I haven't seen this Chad, his "brother" actually interviewed about this. Can you provide a link?

And did Trayvon really leave the 13 -14 year old he was supposed to be babysitting all alone? Was that a responsible thing to do?

But even more significant, Martin's mom told ABC News that Trayvon was her youngest son. She said

http://abcnews.go.co...kouts-petition/


So who is this Chad, the 13-14 year old that both you and Crump called Trayvon's brother?

Well it turns out he's the son of the Dad's girlfriend, Ms Green.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all


So you don't know as much about this case as you pretend. And I'm VERY curious how the lawyer could make make such a huge mistake. He wasn't trying to influence the public, was he? And if he could get that fact wrong, what else has he said that's wrong?


Well the discovery documents state that the skittles were in his pocket. And in the above Reuters link you can see that Crump told the press that the skittles were found in a pocket. So that much Crump apparently got right.

But I don't see reference in the discovery documents to an Arizona canned drink other there being a picture of a can of Arizona watermelon juice on top of the body bag. I don't find where it was found. The reuters article said Crump said a can of "Arizona ice tea" was in his jacket. But should I take Crump's word on the location when he apparently misidentified it as "ice tea"? Or were there two Arizona cans at the site of the investigation? Should I trust Crump when he didn't even know Chad wasn't Trayvon's "brother" … except perhaps in the sense that blacks call each other? Or perhaps the story (lie?) that was pushed about "Chad" hadn't quite solidified yet?

They know he was going to get skittles for chad because chad sent him a text that said:

where my skittles be?

Edited by LonelySolophist420, 29 May 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[Old Mack]

Why do you call this innocent child a "chimping out negro?"[/font]

He's just a trailer trash loser desperate for attention.

Isn't calling someone trailer trash the same as calling someone a chimping out negro ???

It's just another example of the ultraliberal thinking that there is good hate / bad hate or good racial slurs and bad racial slurs and only they have the right to pick which is which.

BTW: Martha...how do you know Trayvon was innocent...were you there ? How do you know he wasn't up to no good ?

If you saw anyone unknown to you milling about in a hoodie (their race unimportant) wouldn't you feel a little uncomfortable or would you think they were just a innocent person out for a walk ?

[tech guy]

lol yes I know i have read it no it is not a no brainier, the lungs have compartments that can remain functional enough to speak even after they are punctured. Lung collapse in gun shot wounds depends on how big the lung is, were on the lung it is, as well as how long it takes for the pleural cavity to fill up with enough blood to collapse the lungs

.Lol ok i am not questioning the credibility of the coroner just your retarded ass claim

The medical examiner's report said both lungs were collapsed, not partially collapsed or only one side collapsed. Both lungs collapsed due to the gunshot wound Martin received.

Air would fill the pleural cavity causing negative pressure when there is an exterior wound which penetrates the lungs. Blood and fluid would eventually fill the pleural cavity but air pressure would be nonexistent almost immediately.

You can either believe the coroner's report or not. It's of no consequence to me.

[LonelySolophist420]

The medical examiner's report said both lungs were collapsed, not partially collapsed or only one side collapsed. Both lungs collapsed due to the gunshot wound Martin received.

Air would fill the pleural cavity causing negative pressure when there is an exterior wound which penetrates the lungs. Blood and fluid would eventually fill the pleural cavity but air pressure would be nonexistent almost immediately.No it wouldn't the only lobe of the right lung to be punctured was the lower lobe, the lung can still function in speech with it punctured.

You can either believe the coroner's report or not. It's of no consequence to me.

And you are saying that it would be impossible for him to talk before all of that happened. That is banned word bull [excrement] that stuff doesn't happen instantly it takes a couple of seconds, more than enough time to say one sentence. There is also no way to tell if the whole right lung collapsed because of the fragment puncture in the lower right lobe or if the whole long collapsed because of bleeding in the pleural cavity.

[Golfboy]

Both of Trayvon Martin's lungs were collapsed by the gunshot. This is according to the autopsy report. Both lungs were also pierced by jacket fragments or the bullet core. This would immediately prevent the pressure necessary to generate sound. It's a no brainer. By the way, a coroner is a forensic pathologist.

FYI - The lungs had collapsed by the time of autopsy, not at the time of the shooting, and would have been caused by the large amount of bleeding into the pericardial sac, which would have taken some time to occur.

The medical examiner's report said both lungs were collapsed, not partially collapsed or only one side collapsed. Both lungs collapsed due to the gunshot wound Martin received.

Air would fill the pleural cavity causing negative pressure when there is an exterior wound which penetrates the lungs. Blood and fluid would eventually fill the pleural cavity but air pressure would be nonexistent almost immediately.

You can either believe the coroner's report or not. It's of no consequence to me.

One can believe the coroner's report, AND question your depiction of how it occurred and what affect it would have had on Martin. Again, you're no forensic expert who can claim that Martin was immediately unable to talk when he was shot.
You don't know WTF you're talking about, but as usual, that doesn't stop you from making these absurd claims.

Edited by Golfboy, 29 May 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[gailybee]

Isn't calling someone trailer trash the same as calling someone a chimping out negro ???

No, it isn't.


Trailer Trash can be anyone--a Negro can't.

Just sayin'...

[Golfboy]

Are you really this uninformed that you think someone who has just received a mortal wound to the chest, in which both of their lungs have been pierced by fragmentation from a bullet and their heart pierced, would be able to do anything more that mouth some words? Speech requires three things - an oral cavity, a larynx and air filled lungs. If a person's lungs are punctured the lungs cannot created the necessary pressure to force air across the vocal folds in the larynx creating sound vibrations which enter the oral cavity where they are amplified and then exit the mouth. Both of Trayvon Martin's lungs were collapsed from puncture wounds according to the autopsy performed by the coroner.

Get a grip Golfboy. You only succeed at making yourself look stupid and uninformed when make these contrarian posts with absolutely no basis in fact.

This coming from the guy who ignores the evidence and claims he thinks Zimmerman shot Martin while they were standing.
You really shouldn't preach about looking stupid and uninformed.

[Byia]

This coming from the guy who ignores the evidence and claims he thinks Zimmerman shot Martin while they were standing.
You really shouldn't preach about looking stupid and uninformed.

You twisting Tech's words. He did not say Trayvon was standing. Best go back and reread it.

[Golfboy]

You twisting Tech's words. He did not say Trayvon was standing. Best go back and reread it.

Here is what he said:
"To me the path of the bullet seems inconsistent with a struggle on the ground and more likely from the gun being aimed from a standing position, but I'm no forensic expert."

Since the bullet went "straight in" both men would have had to have been standing for this scenario to work. And of course all the witnesses who saw them struggling on the ground, and the physical evidence would have to be ignored.

[Byia]

Here is what he said:
"To me the path of the bullet seems inconsistent with a struggle on the ground and more likely from the gun being aimed from a standing position, but I'm no forensic expert."

Since the bullet went "straight in" both men would have had to have been standing for this scenario to work. And of course all the witnesses who saw them struggling on the ground, and the physical evidence would have to be ignored.

That's how I read it.
there hasn't been much news out in the past few days. So we have been discussing different things that coulda/woulda/shoulda happened. Not what DID happen.

Tech is talking about different scenerio's. He is saying IF he was standing, all witness's and evidence would have to be ignored. No one is expecting for all the evidence to be ignored, specially Tech.

Tech has come up with tons of links and more clear evidence than anyone else in the thread. Tech has been the most and the best informer to us than anyone. Tech posts have been in an inquisitive civil manner until others come in and snip at him just for the sake of snipping.
Your looking for him or other Trayvon supporters to say something so you can snip at them. We are not allowed to inject an opinion rather than fact. Tech has presented more facts, and corrected others, even those on his side of opinion, because he is the best informed one in this case.

[Golfboy]

That's how I read it.
there hasn't been much news out in the past few days. So we have been discussing different things that coulda/woulda/shoulda happened. Not what DID happen.

Tech is talking about different scenerio's. He is saying IF he was standing, all witness's and evidence would have to be ignored. No one is expecting for all the evidence to be ignored, specially Tech.

Tech has come up with tons of links and more clear evidence than anyone else in the thread. Tech has been the most and the best informer to us than anyone. Tech posts have been in an inquisitive civil manner until others come in and snip at him just for the sake of snipping.
Your looking for him or other Trayvon supporters to say something so you can snip at them. We are not allowed to inject an opinion rather than fact. Tech has presented more facts, and corrected others, even those on his side of opinion, because he is the best informed one in this case.

Tech Guy didn't say that the evidence would have to be ignored, I said he was ignoring the evidence in order to promote his opinion. He even admitted it was his opinion.
Why are you defending his stupidity?

[Isabel]

Isn't calling someone trailer trash the same as calling someone a chimping out negro ???

Nope.

It's just another example of the ultraliberal thinking that there is good hate / bad hate or good racial slurs and bad racial slurs and only they have the right to pick which is which.

And here it is - the usual neocon self-comforting MADE-UP VERSION of what your opponent believes so you can impotently slap away at it.

BTW: Martha...how do you know Trayvon was innocent...were you there ?

We also don't know if aliens did it, but the evidence all indicates that a social loser and bully hunted down and murdered an innocent kid - but don't let the facts or reality or basic human decency stop you from cheering the death of a child.

If you saw anyone unknown to you milling about in a hoodie (their race unimportant) wouldn't you feel a little uncomfortable or would you think they were just a innocent person out for a walk ?

Probably not, but then, I lived in NYC for almost 20 years and not only am I a good judge of threat, but also not a dickless coward like Zimmerman. In any case, feeling uncomfortable would be perfectly fine. Following, chasing, staking, condemning them as criminal, calling them names, confronting them and shooting them dead, on the other hand, are not.

Edited by Isabel, 29 May 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Byia]

Tech Guy didn't say that the evidence would have to be ignored, I said he was ignoring the evidence in order to promote his opinion. He even admitted it was his opinion.
Why are you defending his stupidity?

Because I don't see it as stupidity. I see we are reading it differently.
Golfboy;

Tech Guy didn't say that the evidence would have to be ignored

Tech;

And of course all the witnesses who saw them struggling on the ground, and the physical evidence would have to be ignored.

[Wolffe]

It's been claimed he was buying them for his younger brother, but when was that claim actually made and by whom?

I first learned of it via the little brother in a video interview.

[tech guy]

I never said anything whatsoever about ignoring evidence. This is just another tall tale Goofboy has invented in his mind about what he thinks I said or implied. All I did was indicate my opinion that the path the bullet took as it entered Trayvon Martin's body seemed, to me, like it would have been fired from a standing position. Clearly this is just my opinion and I even stated I'm not a forensic expert, indicating that they would have superior knowledge about bullet trajectories, gunshot wounds, etc. What is interesting is the actual lack of eyewitnesses who were looking directly at the two parties at the very moment the gunshot was fired. It is not impossible that Zimmerman and Martin had both regained a standing position when the shot was fired, but I am in no way offering this a definitive or proven in any way. It is merely speculation taking all the evidence into consideration.

I just reread all the witness statements, both those recounted by the police officers involved and those written down by the witnesses themselves. From the best I can tell there was only one eyewitness who claims her eyes were on the men at the very moment the shot was fired. This witness could not distinguish any characteristics about either of the men, only observing that one appeared to be larger than the other. After the gunshot she said the large man came closer to where she was observing and she thought he was the one later identified as George Zimmerman.

Many of the eyewitnesses were not actually watching the crime at the very moment the shot was fired. Several witnesses did see struggling on the ground, but not at that fatal moment.

[Wolffe]

So who is this Chad, the 13-14 year old that both you and Crump called Trayvon's brother?

Well it turns out he's the son of the Dad's girlfriend, Ms Green. .... So you don't know as much about this case as you pretend.

No shit Retarded Sherlock. I've spoken of him being his future little stepbrother umpteen times in this thread. WTF did you think "Future little stepbrother meant?

Jesus Christ, you are SO behind on all the information, it's like you're retarded.

I've brought up EVERYTHING you've posted either by mentioning it myself or via the links I've posted, WEEKS ago.

Catch the fuck up imbecile.

And I'm VERY curious how the lawyer could make make such a huge mistake.

What mistake? He WAS effectively his little step brother. Brandy Green was his future step mother. The wedding hadn't happened yet, but it doesn't mean they didn't act and feel like the were already family.

Did he leave his 14 year old step brother at home alone? Yes. So the fuck what?

I was babysitting when I was 14. I certainly think a 14 year old is old enough to be left home alone while Trayvon just went out to the store.

But I don't see reference in the discovery documents to an Arizona canned drink

There's plenty of reference to the can in the discovery from multiple sources and how and where it was found and how it was handled. Read again retard.

Edited by Wolffe, 29 May 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[Isabel]

Read again retard.

It won't help.

Bea doesn't actually read anything - he just obediently bleats out whatever his pimps have ordered him to say.

[Wolffe]

This coming from the guy who ignores the evidence and claims he thinks Zimmerman shot Martin while they were standing.
You really shouldn't preach about looking stupid and uninformed.

Goofball, you continually misconstrue what has been written here.

You just got finished posting information you thought was new that had already posted in this thread MULTIPLE TIMES. I mean really? You never knew that they were referring to "Chad Green"? You didn't figure that out until NOW? Even BeinALoser posted about it in the beginning of April. Here it is almost two months later and you're just catching on NOW?

You still haven't figured out what the discovery report said about the location of the Arizona juice can.


You're clearly so devoid of being able to absorb and retain information, you wouldn't know what the fuck TechGuy was saying. He's WAY, WAY, WAY above your pay grade intellectually.

Edited by Wolffe, 29 May 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Wolffe]

It won't help.

Bea doesn't actually read anything - he just obediently bleats out whatever his pimps have ordered him to say.

Evidently.

[Golfboy]

I never said anything whatsoever about ignoring evidence. This is just another tall tale Goofboy has invented in his mind about what he thinks I said or implied. All I did was indicate my opinion that the path the bullet took as it entered Trayvon Martin's body seemed, to me, like it would have been fired from a standing position. Clearly this is just my opinion and I even stated I'm not a forensic expert, indicating that they would have superior knowledge about bullet trajectories, gunshot wounds, etc. What is interesting is the actual lack of eyewitnesses who were looking directly at the two parties at the very moment the gunshot was fired. It is not impossible that Zimmerman and Martin had both regained a standing position when the shot was fired, but I am in no way offering this a definitive or proven in any way. It is merely speculation taking all the evidence into consideration.

Doubling down on stupid. In order for your new "opinion" to be true, you'd HAVE to ignore the evidence. And once again, that's not really a problem given the fact that you've not cared about the evidence from day one.

I just reread all the witness statements, both those recounted by the police officers involved and those written down by the witnesses themselves. From the best I can tell there was only one eyewitness who claims her eyes were on the men at the very moment the shot was fired. This witness could not distinguish any characteristics about either of the men, only observing that one appeared to be larger than the other. After the gunshot she said the large man came closer to where she was observing and she thought he was the one later identified as George Zimmerman.

This is the same witness that I correctly pointed out repeatedly (4 times?) said it was too dark to see any details, which you then lied about, saying I claimed she didn't see anything. Now you're claiming she didn't see anything?

Many of the eyewitnesses were not actually watching the crime at the very moment the shot was fired. Several witnesses did see struggling on the ground, but not at that fatal moment.

Yes, you idiots have been calling them "ear witnesses".

Goofball, you continually misconstrue what has been written here.

You just got finished posting information you thought was new that had already posted in this thread MULTIPLE TIMES. I mean really? You never knew that they were referring to "Chad Green"? You didn't figure that out until NOW? Even BeinALoser posted about it in the beginning of April. Here it is almost two months later and you're just catching on NOW?

You still haven't figured out what the discovery report said about the location of the Arizona juice can.


You're clearly so devoid of being able to absorb and retain information, you wouldn't know what the fuck TechGuy was saying. He's WAY, WAY, WAY above your pay grade intellectually.

WTF are you blabbering about? What information did I post that I thought was new?

[tech guy]

Doubling down on stupid. In order for your new "opinion" to be true, you'd HAVE to ignore the evidence. And once again, that's not really a problem given the fact that you've not cared about the evidence from day one.

This is the same witness that I correctly pointed out repeatedly (4 times?) said it was too dark to see any details, which you then lied about, saying I claimed she didn't see anything. Now you're claiming she didn't see anything?


Yes, you idiots have been calling them "ear witnesses".

WTF are you blabbering about? What information did I post that I thought was new?

So far your inability to post anything whatsoever to back up your incessant bleating makes you look like a blithering idiot.

This especially when you continuously take what others have said out of context and make up your own wild, imaginative tales to explain your fantasies.

[Wolffe]

No shit Retarded Sherlock. I've spoken of him being his future little stepbrother umpteen times in this thread. WTF did you think "Future little stepbrother meant?

Jesus Christ, you are SO behind on all the information, it's like you're retarded.

I've brought up EVERYTHING you've posted either by mentioning it myself or via the links I've posted, WEEKS ago.

Catch the fuck up imbecile.




What mistake? He WAS effectively his little step brother. Brandy Green was his future step mother. The wedding hadn't happened yet, but it doesn't mean they didn't act and feel like the were already family.

Did he leave his 14 year old step brother at home alone? Yes. So the fuck what?

I was babysitting when I was 14. I certainly think a 14 year old is old enough to be left home alone while Trayvon just went out to the store.



There's plenty of reference to the can in the discovery from multiple sources and how and where it was found and how it was handled. Read again retard.

WTF are you blabbering about? What information did I post that I thought was new?

Boy, you're even too stupid to know what you just posted.

Edited by Wolffe, 29 May 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[Golfboy]

Boy, you're even too stupid to know what you just posted.

Sorry, but you've lied about so many things, I have no idea what you're claiming this time.
Since you won't point it out, I'll just assume it's another of your long list of lies.

On edit: I see you updated your post, but unfortunately for you, I did say anything about Treyvon's future step-brother.
But no worries, I don't expect you to man up and admit your lie.

Edited by Golfboy, 29 May 2012 - 12:32 PM.