George Zimmerman's bloody head

[paperview]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

 

[paperview]

I'd pretty sure he's pleading not guilty no matter what.

 

[dilloduck]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

and conversly we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge.

 

[Liability]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

You don't see how he can make the claim just because he survived what he says was the attack on him -- an attack for which there now appears to BE some actual physical, photographic, maybe medical and possibly forensic evidence?

Hm.

I fail to see how that constitutes a problem for him.

 

[Liability]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

and conversly we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge.

True dat.

 

[paperview]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

and conversly we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge.

Again, I repeat what I posted earlier:

Have you seen the autopsy results?
Have you seen the toxicology results?
Have you seen the results of the blood spatter testing?
Have you seen the gunshot residue on Trayvon's hands, body?
Have you seen the results of the testing on zimmerman's clothing?
Have you seen the sworn testimony of each witness?
Have you seen the trajectory of the bullet?
Have you seen fingerprint report on the gun and who they belonged too?
Have you seen if Zimmerman's DNA was found under Trayvon's fingernails?
Do you know if Trayvon sustained any defensive wounds?
Have you seen the results of the FBI enhanced tapes?
Do you know who was screaming "help?"
Have you seen the EMT's report?
Do you know if blood was found on the walkway, tree or electrical coverings in the grass?
Do you know what Zimmerman said in each of his three/five interviews?
Have you seen exactly where Zimmerman's truck was parked?
Do you know in which direction was the truck pointed?

Do you know the answers to any these questions? (here, I'll help you out) NO.

If you DO know the answers to these questions, please speak out, so we can all be sure the Special Prosecutors arrested and charged a man who killed a teenager with "zero" evidence to back it up.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

and conversly we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge.

Again, I repeat what I posted earlier:

Have you seen the autopsy results?
Have you seen the toxicology results?
Have you seen the results of the blood spatter testing?
Have you seen the gunshot residue on Trayvon's hands, body?
Have you seen the results of the testing on zimmerman's clothing?
Have you seen the sworn testimony of each witness?
Have you seen the trajectory of the bullet?
Have you seen fingerprint report on the gun and who they belonged too?
Have you seen if Zimmerman's DNA was found under Trayvon's fingernails?
Do you know if Trayvon sustained any defensive wounds?
Have you seen the results of the FBI enhanced tapes?
Do you know who was screaming "help?"
Have you seen the EMT's report?
Do you know if blood was found on the walkway, tree or electrical coverings in the grass?
Do you know what Zimmerman said in each of his three/five interviews?
Have you seen exactly where Zimmerman's truck was parked?
Do you know in which direction was the truck pointed?

Do you know the answers to any these questions? (here, I'll help you out) NO.

If you DO know the answers to these questions, please speak out, so we can all be sure the Special Prosecutors arrested and charged a man who killed a teenager with "zero" evidence to back it up.

I clearly said

we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge

 

[Ravi]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.

 

[paperview]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.

 

[dilloduck]

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.

A hoodie is sort of a hat, Ravi. Got one in your closet?

 

[Ravi]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The democrat's desired result is starting to bear fruit.

Alton Hayes III | Suspect: I Beat Up White Man Because I Am Mad About Trayvon Martin Case

Maywood, Ill. - Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.

Hayes and a 15-year-old Chicago boy walked up behind the 19-year-old man victim and pinned his arms to his side, police said. Hayes, 18, then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”

The two allegedly rifled through the victim’s pockets, then threw him to the ground and punched him “numerous times” in the head and back before running away, police said. Hayes and the boy are black; the victim is white.

After being arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the Trayvon Martin case and beat the man up because he was white

Whitie's fault!

 

[paperview]

I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when he is the only one who can testify to that.

Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.

A hoodie is sort of a hat, Ravi. Got one in your closet?

Word has it you have a permanent hat on.


;p

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.

A hoodie is sort of a hat, Ravi. Got one in your closet?

Word has it you have a permanent hat on.


;p

really ?---I never get to hear those rumors. Such brave people

 

[whitehall]

I think Rodney King apologized in a way. The words "can't we all get along" have become a source for jokes but they were intended to stop the rioting that took the lives of about 55 people. What's going to happen if Zimmerman gets acquitted? Will the OWS rabble join with the new panthers and try a little anarchy like Bill Ayers and his weatherscum rabble tried forty years ago?

 

[dilloduck]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

C'mere Ravi----I wanna try an experiment on you.

 

[Liability]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

Trained forensic photograph and medical examiner Ravi has spoken.

Back here in the real world, that particular image, standing alone, neither does look like adequate proof nor does it fail, on its own, to qualify as solid evidence.

What it DOES do is this: it serves (minimally) as corroboration that something violent was happening to Zimmerman. It serves as contemporaneous evidence suggesting that he wasn't merely making shit up after the shooting. In short, it bolsters his case.

"Bolstering his case," at this juncture, does NOT mean the same thing as sufficing as adequate proof of legal "justification." What it means is that there is now available and publicly disseminated evidence tending to support what he maintained from the outset.

Those are not inconsequential points for him. Yesterday's news, on balance, was indeed good new for the defense.

 

[paperview]

A hoodie is sort of a hat, Ravi. Got one in your closet?

Word has it you have a permanent hat on.


;p

really ?---I never get to hear those rumors. Such brave people

It was a joke, hardon.

 

[paperview]

I think Rodney King apologized in a way. The words "can't we all get along" have become a source for jokes but they were intended to stop the rioting that took the lives of about 55 people. What's going to happen if Zimmerman gets acquitted? Will the OWS rabble join with the new panthers and try a little anarchy like Bill Ayers and his weatherscum rabble tried forty years ago?

Except I'm pretty sure those words were uttered by Reginald Denny, not Rodney King.

Nope. Rodney King.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0]Can We All Just Get Along? For The Kids & Old People? RODNEY KING SPEAKS! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[manifold]

I think Rodney King apologized in a way. The words "can't we all get along" have become a source for jokes but they were intended to stop the rioting that took the lives of about 55 people. What's going to happen if Zimmerman gets acquitted? Will the OWS rabble join with the new panthers and try a little anarchy like Bill Ayers and his weatherscum rabble tried forty years ago?

Except I'm pretty sure those words were uttered by Reginald Denny, not Rodney King.

Nope. Rodney King.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0]Can We All Just Get Along? For The Kids & Old People? RODNEY KING SPEAKS! - YouTube[/ame]

yeah, I immediately had second thoughts after posting, and upon doing my own research I deleted.