George Zimmerman's bloody head

[tinydancer]

Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?

Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle.

Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.

And Zimmerman's was DatNiggy....do you have a point?

Why does everyone only post his grade 8 picture. Not his current? You tell me. Because it's the media manipulating this game.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.

There are no injuries to Zimmerman's hands, just the back of his head. If, as you keep insisting is possible because there is no evidence to counter it, Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head. If you actually think that is stupid, why do you keep saying it?

I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.

Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The fact remains is the only description of the happened it from the man charged with Murder 2 (which is still an overreach IMHO).

I'm not arguing that the alternate scenario is true, only that it is a scenario that fits with the known facts not based on Zimmerman's self serving story.

Could it have happened? Yes. Would the State have to prove it? Yes. Can they prove it? Probably not.

What alternative explanation do you have? Here are the facts we know.

1. Zimmerman had a gun.
2. There was an altercation.
3. All of Zimmerman's injuries are on the back of his head.

What possible reason would a man with a gun have to start a fight and leave his gun in his holster. You are saying Zimmerman's explanation doesn't make sense, but what possible scenario has a man with a gun loosing a fight he intentionally and with malice aforethought starts.

Try again. I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense. Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened. If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.

And? Does that mean that if, as an example, a watch volunteer reports someone breaking into his home he has to run away? If not, why keep bringing it up? Is it because you have no clue how to actually debate the actually situation Zimmerman found himself in, so you have to inject random facts in order to look semi intelligent?

No it doesn't mean that if someone is breaking into a NW person house they have to run away. That's what the Stand Your Ground Law means. Which is not the situation in this case. In this case Zimmerman was actively attempting to follow someone in public against advice of the dispatcher and against the training he'd received as a NW representative.

Take that for what you will. The jury will do the same.

Sure, it is possible a man with a gun elected to grab a kid a decade younger than him rather than use the weapon to detain him. It is also possible the moon is made of green cheese. Seriously, do you really want to assert that scenario?

Fits the known facts and is supported by the same evidence that says that the only person that is noted (by Zimmerman himself) as to running away from the situation doubled back and then attacked the person with a criminal record of violence who was following some unknown person into a situation against training he'd received from the police.

Exactly what I've been saying. Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.

However lack of evidence does not support a guilty verdict, it only supports a non guilty verdict.

That doesn't even make sense.

You are the one trying to argue you have an open mind, yet you keep insisting that, because we don't know what happened in a minute or so you think is critical, that we cannot reach a valid conclusion. If we actually have to come down on the not guilty side without clear evidence, we actually have enough evidence to reach a valid conclusion.

Which is what I said. There are multiple scenario's that fit the evidence. In some of those scenario's Zimmerman is at fault, in other Martin is at fault. At the end of the day, once all the information is made public, the prosecution will have presented their case and the defense will have presented their case. Then it will time to decide. If the state lacks evidence to show that Zimmerman acted outside the legal bounds of self defense, then it will have failed to achieve it's burden of proof and Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?


>>>>

Only idiots think that, which proves you are an idiot.

No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.

The fact of the matter is that Stand your Ground actually requires you to back off once you are out of danger. Florida is not California, so his right to self defense ended when Martin was out of the fight. The moment Zimmerman was on the ground Martin had no reasonable fear for his life, and he should have walked away.

There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part. Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin. At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot. If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words). The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?

Because we have to have a show trial for the race baiters. It's really fucking simple. Did Zimmerman fire into Trayvon's chest? Or did Zimmerman shoot him in the back.

Nice and mother trucking simple.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?

Because we have to have a show trial for the race baiters. It's really fucking simple. Did Zimmerman fire into Trayvon's chest? Or did Zimmerman shoot him in the back.

Nice and mother trucking simple.

Just wondering, and this is a serious question as I don't know.


If Zimmerman was on the bottom, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger, what would the difference in the GSR, burn marks, and bullet path be if Zimmerman is on the top, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger?


Would it possible to determine if the shot was fired with Martin on top or Zimmerman on top?


>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.

There are no injuries to Zimmerman's hands, just the back of his head. If, as you keep insisting is possible because there is no evidence to counter it, Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head. If you actually think that is stupid, why do you keep saying it?

I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.



Try again. I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense. Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened. If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.



No it doesn't mean that if someone is breaking into a NW person house they have to run away. That's what the Stand Your Ground Law means. Which is not the situation in this case. In this case Zimmerman was actively attempting to follow someone in public against advice of the dispatcher and against the training he'd received as a NW representative.

Take that for what you will. The jury will do the same.




Fits the known facts and is supported by the same evidence that says that the only person that is noted (by Zimmerman himself) as to running away from the situation doubled back and then attacked the person with a criminal record of violence who was following some unknown person into a situation against training he'd received from the police.



Which is what I said. There are multiple scenario's that fit the evidence. In some of those scenario's Zimmerman is at fault, in other Martin is at fault. At the end of the day, once all the information is made public, the prosecution will have presented their case and the defense will have presented their case. Then it will time to decide. If the state lacks evidence to show that Zimmerman acted outside the legal bounds of self defense, then it will have failed to achieve it's burden of proof and Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

Only idiots think that, which proves you are an idiot.

No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.

The fact of the matter is that Stand your Ground actually requires you to back off once you are out of danger. Florida is not California, so his right to self defense ended when Martin was out of the fight. The moment Zimmerman was on the ground Martin had no reasonable fear for his life, and he should have walked away.

There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part. Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin. At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot. If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words). The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>

My first love is murder. Boy that doesn't sound right does it?. But you rock when you make a legal opinion just a real deal to me. Nice and simple and truly appreciated.

Kudos and thanks on that. Good show. And greatly cheered as we are muddling thru this.

 

[tinydancer]

If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?

Because we have to have a show trial for the race baiters. It's really fucking simple. Did Zimmerman fire into Trayvon's chest? Or did Zimmerman shoot him in the back.

Nice and mother trucking simple.

Just wondering, and this is a serious question as I don't know.


If Zimmerman was on the bottom, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger, what would the difference in the GSR, burn marks, and bullet path be if Zimmerman is on the top, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger?


Would it possible to determine if the shot was fired with Martin on top or Zimmerman on top?


>>>>

OMG before the end of this thread we could be dating. Joking. Joking. !!!!! Great minds think alike though. I want the forensics report.

Zimmerman would have had to fire from below.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My first love is murder. Boy that doesn't sound right does it?. But you rock when you make a legal opinion just a real deal to me. Nice and simple and truly appreciated.

Kudos and thanks on that. Good show. And greatly cheered as we are muddling thru this.

I know we are not on the jury, but there are two ways to approach this. One, decide guilt or innocence - then ignore any other possibility. The other is to consider many possibilities that fit the facts and the law, as more facts are revealed - eliminate scenario's that are not supported by the facts. In the end, look to the law and determine if the facts presented by the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, if they don't vote "not guilty" if they do vote "guilty".


>>>>

 

[MeBelle]

But would innocent folks be getting the shit beat out of them for no good reason, other than being white?

Yaeh.... whatever.

I don't understand the question. You believe if the victim wasn't a black person, he gunman wouldn't have been involved in an altercation?

What are you saying?

He's saying that had Trayvon been white, blacks wouldn't now being beating up white people in his name.

If whites are being beat up by people in the 'name of Trayvon', shouldn't the ones doing the beatings be beating on Hispanics?

 

[MeBelle]

OMG before the end of this thread we could be dating. Joking. Joking. !!!!! Great minds think alike though. I want the forensics report.

Zimmerman would have had to fire from below.

I'm hankering for autopsy report...morbid, I know.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't understand the question. You believe if the victim wasn't a black person, he gunman wouldn't have been involved in an altercation?

What are you saying?

He's saying that had Trayvon been white, blacks wouldn't now being beating up white people in his name.

If whites are being beat up by people in the 'name of Trayvon', shouldn't the ones doing the beatings be beating on Hispanics?

You would think, wouldn't you? Probably they are picking on whites because they know the Hispanics will fight back even if it means hunting them down.

 

[tinydancer]

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve. OJ's verdict wasnt that he was let off; it was the attitude of the jury. Flippant.

Bothers me to this day.

 

[FuelRod]

This doesn't look for for the prosecution and the charges appear reckless to me.

 

[Trajan]

Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?

Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.

No evidence of a black eye, no broken nose, no scars, not even a scratch...pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway.

Does that face look like it was just in the struggle that left him near death?

Is it becoming more clear why Angela Corey didn't need much to come to her conclussion?

The man has been Bullshatting from the beginning...he's a big-time bullshatter.

RWers....where do you stand on the case now?

Are you still buying George Zimmerman's swill hook, line and sinker?

Or are you ready to accept the FACTS of the case as it stands?

What say you?

hes sure some cracker aint he?

 

[tinydancer]

I don't understand the question. You believe if the victim wasn't a black person, he gunman wouldn't have been involved in an altercation?

What are you saying?

He's saying that had Trayvon been white, blacks wouldn't now being beating up white people in his name.

If whites are being beat up by people in the 'name of Trayvon', shouldn't the ones doing the beatings be beating on Hispanics?

One would think Holder would speak out. But then I have to remember he's Janet the mentor "kill 70 innocent men women and children " dude.

These dems are fucked up. She burned 70 alive. And I hate the Bushes for not prosecuting her.

Dont get me going on GH.

 

[MarcATL]

Google Trayvon Martin No limit Nigga.

Again, I'm asking you, Bigfoot of USMessageBoard fame...

What does that mean?

Stop being such a coward, answer the simple and straightforward question.

Google is not necessary for this.

Hi, you have received -6 reputation points from Bigfoot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
You just love your phoney hate crimes don\'t you.

Regards,
Bigfoot

Note: This is an automated message.

More...more!!

Hi, you have received -313 reputation points from koshergrl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
.

Regards,
koshergrl

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[FuelRod]

Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?

Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.

No evidence of a black eye, no broken nose, no scars, not even a scratch...pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway.

Does that face look like it was just in the struggle that left him near death?

Is it becoming more clear why Angela Corey didn't need much to come to her conclussion?

The man has been Bullshatting from the beginning...he's a big-time bullshatter.

RWers....where do you stand on the case now?

Are you still buying George Zimmerman's swill hook, line and sinker?

Or are you ready to accept the FACTS of the case as it stands?

What say you?

hes sure some cracker aint he?

History books will have him painted like a blonde haired blue eyes Jesus.

 

[tinydancer]

Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?

Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.

No evidence of a black eye, no broken nose, no scars, not even a scratch...pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway.

Does that face look like it was just in the struggle that left him near death?

Is it becoming more clear why Angela Corey didn't need much to come to her conclussion?

The man has been Bullshatting from the beginning...he's a big-time bullshatter.

RWers....where do you stand on the case now?

Are you still buying George Zimmerman's swill hook, line and sinker?

Or are you ready to accept the FACTS of the case as it stands?

What say you?

hes sure some cracker aint he?

Time date the photo.

Or shut the fuck up. With all due respect.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.

IMHO, yes.

You (royal you here) have to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, that they can rise to greatness when duty calls. Sometimes greatness its a firefighter running into a burning building. Sometimes it's a soldier who gives his life to save a little girl from being run over in a street in a foreign land. Sometimes its being called to sit in judgment of our fellow men. That they can put away the anger, listen with their brains and their hearts, that when called they apply the law and make the just decision.

You have to believe in that, because frankly I can't think of a better system.


>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.

Could you try that again in English.


>>>>